The Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium: A Novel Initiative to Improve the Quality of Radiation Oncology Care

Incorporating financial toxicity considerations into clinical trial design to facilitate patient‐centered decision‐making in oncology

“…Smaller studies have begun examining the financial implications of treatment (e.g., the single‐institution study registered as NCT03506451). Partnership with insurance companies can result in initiatives aiming to improve quality, 44 such as promoting the use of hypofractionation, which decreases costs borne by insurers and patients alike. Novel payment methods that aim to remove fee‐for‐service remuneration may further change incentives that drive oncologic practices 45,46 …”

“…Small efforts to peel back the number or intensity of therapies in a manner that may reduce financial toxicity have taken place. [43][44][45][46] Retrospective data can create hypothesis-generating data such as whether shorter durations of adjuvant therapy may offer equivalent outcomes; for example, a recent study utilizing a Veterans Affairs population suggested that halving the length of adjuvant durvalumab after definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced NSCLC might maintain excellent outcomes, 43 which may deserve further investigation. Pharmacokinetic studies identifying optimal methods of drug delivery, termed "interventional pharmacoeconomics," 47 may offer methods to test lower dosing of medications.…”

Perceptions on and roadblocks to implementation of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology: A survey from TG‐263U1

“…6 TG-263 has also been implemented in a collaborative quality initiative and data abstraction frameworks that collect and analyze practice patterns and patient outcomes. [7][8][9][10] However, there are still present challenges that prevent the complete adoption of the TG-263 naming formalism. 11 Several groups have published automated solutions for identifying, naming, or relabeling structures in accordance with the TG-263 standard to improve compliance.…”

“… 6 TG‐263 has also been implemented in a collaborative quality initiative and data abstraction frameworks that collect and analyze practice patterns and patient outcomes. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 However, there are still present challenges that prevent the complete adoption of the TG‐263 naming formalism. 11 …”

“…The TG‐263 naming convention improved data quality and sharing at the clinic and national level, and was adopted by the Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonization Group (GHG) for the consensus guidelines of organ‐at‐risk delineation in clinical trials 6 . TG‐263 has also been implemented in a collaborative quality initiative and data abstraction frameworks that collect and analyze practice patterns and patient outcomes 7–10 . However, there are still present challenges that prevent the complete adoption of the TG‐263 naming formalism 11 …”