title: Treatment approach, delivery, and follow-up evaluation for cardiac rhythm disease management patients receiving radiation therapy: retrospective physician surveys including chart reviews at numerous centers.
abstract: In a 2-part study, we first examined the results of 71 surveyed physicians who provided responses on how they address the management of patients who maintained either a pacemaker or a defibrillator during radiation treatment. Second, a case review study is presented involving 112 medical records reviewed at 18 institutions to determine whether there was a change in the radiation prescription for the treatment of the target cancer, the method of radiation delivery, or the method of radiation image acquisition. Statistics are provided to illustrate the level of administrative policy; the level of communication between radiation oncologists and heart specialists; American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging and classification; National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines; tumor site; patient׳s sex; patient׳s age; device type; manufacturer; live monitoring; and the reported decisions for planning, delivery, and imaging. This survey revealed that 37% of patient treatments were considered for some sort of change in this regard, whereas 59% of patients were treated without regard to these alternatives when available. Only 3% of all patients were identified with an observable change in the functionality of the device or patient status in comparison with 96% of patients with normal behavior and operating devices. Documented changes in the patient׳s medical record included 1 device exhibiting failure at 0.3-Gy dose, 1 device exhibiting increased sensor rate during dose delivery, 1 patient having an irregular heartbeat leading to device reprogramming, and 1 patient complained of twinging in the chest wall that resulted in a respiratory arrest. Although policies and procedures should directly involve the qualified medical physicist for technical supervision, their sufficient involvement was typically not requested by most respondents. No treatment options were denied to any patient based on AJCC staging, classification, or NCCN practice standards.
authors.affiliation: Regulation Directive Medical Physics, Russell, KY. Electronic address: MGossman@TSRCC.com.
authors.forename: Michael S
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Gossman
authors.affiliation: Medtronic, Inc., Mounds View, MN.
authors.forename: Jeffrey D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Wilkinson
authors.affiliation: Department of Mathematics, Marshall University, Huntington, WV.
authors.forename: Avishek
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Mallick
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D017147:Defibrillators, Implantable / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004868:Equipment Failure / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D010138:Pacemaker, Artificial / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010820:Physicians / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011878:Radiotherapy / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014481:United States
keywords: Cardiac; Defibrillator; Oncology; Pacemaker; Radiation