Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies on Weekends: Examining Reasons for Treatment and Patterns of Practice at a Canadian Cancer Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiotherapy for oncologic emergencies is an important aspect of the management of cancer patients. These emergencies-which include malignant spinal cord compression, brain metastases, superior vena cava obstruction, and uncontrolled tumour hemorrhage -may require treatment outside of hospital hours, particularly on weekends and hospital holidays. To date, there remains no consensus among radiation oncologists regarding the indications and appropriateness of radiotherapy treatment on weekends, and treatment decisions remain largely subjective. The main aim of the present study was to document the incidence and indications for patients receiving emergency treatment on weekends or scheduled hospital holidays at a single institution. The secondary aim was to investigate the compliance of such treatment with the institution's quality assurance policies, both local and provincial. METHODS: From September 1, 2002, to September 30, 2004, patients being treated over weekends (defined as commencing at 6 pm on a Friday and concluding at 8 am of the next scheduled workday) and hospital holidays were retrospectively identified using the Oncology Patient Information System scheduling module. Relevant patient data-including patient age, sex, primary cancer site, specific radiation field, rationale for treatment, referring hospital, total treatment dose, radiation dose fractionation, inpatient or outpatient status, and duration of treatment-were collected and subsequently analyzed. Comparison to local policy was performed subjectively. RESULTS: Over the 2-year period, 161 patients were prescribed urgent radiotherapy over a weekend or on a hospital holiday. Of this cohort, 68% were treated on both Saturday and Sunday, 22% on Saturday alone, and 10% on Sunday alone. Most patients presented with lung (31%), prostate (18%), and breast cancer (17%). The top reasons for referral for emergency weekend treatment included spinal cord compression (56%), brain metastases (15%), and superior vena cava obstruction (6%). Most of the indications for treatment generally followed the quality assurance policies implemented both locally and provincially. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated over a weekend or on a hospital holiday were generally found to be treated with appropriate intent. Most treatment indications within this study both complied with provincial policy and showed a pattern of care similar to that seen in other studies in the literature. Local policy appears to be robust; however, policy improvements may allow for more cohesiveness across radiation oncologists in patterns of care in this important group of patients. Comparisons with practice at other institutions would be valuable and also a key step in developing sound guidelines for all members of the radiotherapy community to follow.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".