Sustainability in radiation oncology: opportunities for enhancing patient care and reducing CO
Carbon footprint
Climate change
Fossil fuels
Health services
Radiation fractions
Travel distance
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Sep 2024
24 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
22
03
2024
accepted:
31
08
2024
medline:
25
9
2024
pubmed:
25
9
2024
entrez:
24
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Radiotherapy often entails a substantial travel burden for patients accessing radiation oncology centers. The total travel distance for such treatments is primarily influenced by two factors: fractionation schedules and the distances traveled. Specific data on these aspects are not well documented in Germany. This study aims to quantify the travel distances for routine breast cancer patients of five radiation oncology centers located in metropolitan, urban, and rural areas of Germany and to record the CO We analyzed the geographic data of breast cancer patients attending their radiotherapy treatments and calculated travelling distances using Google Maps. Carbon dioxide emissions were estimated assuming a standard 40-miles-per-gallon petrol car emitting 0.168 kg of CO Addresses of 4198 breast cancer patients treated between 2018 and 2022 were analyzed. Our sample traveled an average of 37.2 km (minimum average: 14.2 km, maximum average: 58.3 km) for each radiation fraction. This yielded an estimated total of 6.2 kg of CO Our study highlights the environmental consequences associated with patient commutes for external-beam radiotherapy, indicating that reducing the number of treatment fractions can notably decrease CO
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Radiotherapy often entails a substantial travel burden for patients accessing radiation oncology centers. The total travel distance for such treatments is primarily influenced by two factors: fractionation schedules and the distances traveled. Specific data on these aspects are not well documented in Germany. This study aims to quantify the travel distances for routine breast cancer patients of five radiation oncology centers located in metropolitan, urban, and rural areas of Germany and to record the CO
METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed the geographic data of breast cancer patients attending their radiotherapy treatments and calculated travelling distances using Google Maps. Carbon dioxide emissions were estimated assuming a standard 40-miles-per-gallon petrol car emitting 0.168 kg of CO
RESULT
RESULTS
Addresses of 4198 breast cancer patients treated between 2018 and 2022 were analyzed. Our sample traveled an average of 37.2 km (minimum average: 14.2 km, maximum average: 58.3 km) for each radiation fraction. This yielded an estimated total of 6.2 kg of CO
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study highlights the environmental consequences associated with patient commutes for external-beam radiotherapy, indicating that reducing the number of treatment fractions can notably decrease CO
Identifiants
pubmed: 39317752
doi: 10.1007/s00066-024-02303-w
pii: 10.1007/s00066-024-02303-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : 413668513
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Lutz ST, Jones J, Chow E (2014) Role of radiation therapy in palliative care of the patient with cancer. J Clin Oncol 32(26):2913
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1143
pubmed: 25113773
pmcid: 4152720
Delaney G et al (2005) The role of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: estimating optimal utilization from a review of evidence-based clinical guidelines. Cancer 104(6):1129–1137
doi: 10.1002/cncr.21324
pubmed: 16080176
Wong K, Delaney GP, Barton MB (2016) Evidence-based optimal number of radiotherapy fractions for cancer: a useful tool to estimate radiotherapy demand. Radiother Oncol 119(1):145–149
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.12.001
pubmed: 26718152
Wang S‑L et al (2019) Hypofractionated versus conventional fractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with high-risk breast cancer: a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 20(3):352–360
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30813-1
pubmed: 30711522
Chua BH et al (2022) Radiation doses and fractionation schedules in non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ in the breast (BIG 3–07/TROG 07.01): a randomised, factorial, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet 400(10350):431–440
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01246-6
pubmed: 35934006
Haviland JS et al (2013) The UK Standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol 14(11):1086–1094
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70386-3
pubmed: 24055415
Glicksman RM et al (2021) Elective pelvic nodal irradiation with a simultaneous hypofractionated integrated prostate boost for localized high risk prostate cancer: long term results from a prospective clinical trial. Radiother Oncol 163:21–31
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.07.018
pubmed: 34324914
Aluwini S et al (2016) Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): late toxicity results from a randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 17(4):464–474
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00567-7
pubmed: 26968359
Brand DH et al (2019) Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 20(11):1531–1543
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30569-8
pubmed: 31540791
pmcid: 6838670
Tree AC et al (2022) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2‑year toxicity results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 23(10):1308–1320
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00517-4
pubmed: 36113498
Catton CN et al (2017) Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 35(17):1884–1890
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7397
pubmed: 28296582
Arcangeli G et al (2017) Moderate hypofractionation in high-risk, organ-confined prostate cancer: final results of a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 35(17):1891–1897
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.4189
pubmed: 28355113
Rades D et al (2018) 1x8 Gy versus 5x4 Gy for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a matched-pair study of three prognostic patient subgroups. Radiat Oncol 13(1):1–7
doi: 10.1186/s13014-018-0968-3
Rades D et al (2016) Radiotherapy with 4 Gy× 5 versus 3 Gy× 10 for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: final results of the SCORE-2 trial (ARO 2009/01). J Clin Oncol 34(6):597–602
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.0862
pubmed: 26729431
Rief H et al (2015) High-dose single-fraction IMRT versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy for patients with spinal bone metastases: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 16(1):1–5
doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0761-7
Sprave T et al (2018) Randomized phase II trial evaluating pain response in patients with spinal metastases following stereotactic body radiotherapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 128(2):274–282
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.04.030
pubmed: 29843899
Chow E et al (2014) Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 15(2):164–171
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70556-4
pubmed: 24369114
Widmark A et al (2019) Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5‑year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet 394(10196):385–395
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31131-6
pubmed: 31227373
Dearnaley D et al (2016) Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5‑year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1047–1060
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4
pubmed: 27339115
pmcid: 4961874
Oldenburger E et al (2022) ESTRO ACROP guidelines for external beam radiotherapy of patients with complicated bone metastases. Radiother Oncol 173:240–253
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.06.002
pubmed: 35688398
van der Velden J et al (2022) ESTRO ACROP guidelines for external beam radiotherapy of patients with uncomplicated bone metastases. Radiother Oncol 173:197–206
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.05.024
pubmed: 35661676
Meattini I et al (2022) European society for radiotherapy and oncology advisory committee in radiation oncology practice consensus recommendations on patient selection and dose and fractionation for external beam radiotherapy in early breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 23(1):e21–e31
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00539-8
pubmed: 34973228
Vaidya JS et al (2022) Global adoption of single-shot targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) for breast cancer—better for patients, better for healthcare systems. Front Oncol 12:
Vaidya JS et al (2020) Long term survival and local control outcomes from single dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy (TARGIT-IORT) for early breast cancer: TARGIT—A randomised clinical trial. BMJ 370:m2836
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2836
pubmed: 32816842
pmcid: 7500441
Vaidya JS et al (2021) New clinical and biological insights from the international TARGIT—A randomised trial of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 125(3):380–389
doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01440-8
pubmed: 34035435
pmcid: 8329051
Shenker RF et al (2023) Estimating carbon dioxide emissions and direct power consumption of linear accelerator-based external beam radiation therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 8(3):101170
doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101170
pubmed: 36798606
Dvorak T et al (2023) Evaluating carbon footprint of proton therapy based on power consumption and possible mitigation strategies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Frick MA et al (2023) Effect of radiation schedule on transportation-related carbon emissions: a case study in rectal cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 8(5):101253
doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101253
pubmed: 37250284
pmcid: 10209481
Chuter R et al (2023) Towards estimating the carbon footprint of external beam radiotherapy. Phys Med 112:102652
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102652
pubmed: 37552912
Lichter KE et al (2022) Transitioning to environmentally sustainable, climate-smart radiation oncology care. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 113(5):915–924
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.039
pubmed: 35841919
pmcid: 10024638
Silverwood S et al (2023) Distance traveled by patients globally to access radiotherapy: a systematic review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Turner R, Turner MR (2007) The deldir package
DEGRO, D.D.G.f.R.e. V (2024) Abteilungen Und Praxen Für Strahlentherapien in deutschland. https://www.degro.org/patienten/kliniken-2/ . Accessed 20 Aug 2024
Dorman M (2020) Mapsapi: Sf-compatible interface to google maps APis; R package version 0.4. 5
Team RC (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing
DEGRO), D.D.G.f.R.e. V (2024) https://www.degro.org/patienten/kliniken-2/ . Accessed 31 Jan 2024
eta.co.uk Calculating a car’s CO2 emissions from its mpg. http://www.eta.co.uk/2010/02/22/calculating-a-cars-co2-emissions-from-its-mpg/ . Accessed 23 Feb 2024
Coombs NJ et al (2016) Environmental and social benefits of the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: data from UK TARGIT—A trial centres and two UK NHS hospitals offering TARGIT IORT. BMJ Open 6(5):e10703
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010703
pubmed: 27160842
pmcid: 4890331
Mayinger M et al (2020) Hypo-vs. normofractionated radiation therapy in breast cancer: a patterns of care analysis in German speaking countries. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 25(5):775–779
doi: 10.1016/j.rpor.2020.07.003
pubmed: 32904392
pmcid: 7453120
Krug D et al (2021) Impact of guideline changes on adoption of hypofractionation and breast cancer patient characteristics in the randomized controlled HYPOSIB trial. Strahlenther Onkol 197:802–811
doi: 10.1007/s00066-020-01730-9
pubmed: 33320286
Popp W et al (2021) Erfassung der Häufigkeit von Strahlentherapien in deutschland-Vorhaben 3618S42434
Chen K et al (2017) Development of nomograms to predict axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients. BMC cancer 17:1–10
doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3535-7
Mattes MD et al (2015) Breast cancer subtype as a predictor of lymph node metastasis according to the SEER registry. J Breast Cancer 18(2):143–148
doi: 10.4048/jbc.2015.18.2.143
pubmed: 26155290
pmcid: 4490263
Gannon M et al (2022) Change in the use of fractionation in radiotherapy used for early breast cancer at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study of older women in england and Wales. Clin Oncol 34(9):e400–e409
doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2022.05.019
Statista (2024) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity-power-sector-germany/#:~:text=The%20carbon%20intensity%20of%20Germany’s,%2FKWh)%20of%20electricity%20generated . Accessed 31 Jan 2024
Lievens Y et al (2000) Differences in palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases within Western European countries. Radiother Oncol 56(3):297–303
doi: 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00215-2
pubmed: 10974378
Lievens Y et al (2000) Palliative radiotherapy practice within Western European countries: impact of the radiotherapy financing system? Radiother Oncol 56(3):289–295
doi: 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00214-0
pubmed: 10974377