Poster Presentation Victorian Integrated Cancer Service Conference 2015

Evaluation and standardisation of stabilisation equipment used to deliver radiotherapy for breast cancer patients across a multi-campus institution. (#79)

Alison Cray 1 , Rhonda Lawrence 2 , Brent Chesson 3
  1. Radiotherapy Services, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia
  2. Radiotherapy Services, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Sunshine, Victoria, Australia
  3. Radiotherapy Services, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Background: Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre has grown from a single centre to a five campus institution with services in both metropolitan and rural Victoria.  Acquisition of stabilisation equipment used for patient positioning has previously been driven largely by the local needs of each campus, with resultant inconsistencies between campuses.  With an increasingly global focus to our service and effort to standardise care, we have undertaken a review of current stabilisation equipment used to deliver radiotherapy to breast cancer patients.  This is important to ensure consistent quality standards, keeping pace with evolving Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) techniques, and to ensure that patients can be transferred between campuses where required.

Method:  A literature review was undertaken to identify a range of commercial stabilisation options for the breast technique.  A framework and evaluation tool was developed by a team of senior Radiation Therapists to provide both quantitative and qualitative data in comparing both our current equipment and a range of commercial options.  Verification imaging was used to assess reproducibility of setup.  Ease of use and OH&S were also considered in the evaluation framework.

Results: The framework devised was used to evaluate our current stabilisation equipment, along with three commercial options including Elekta BreaststepTM, Civco C-QualTM and Q-Fix AccessTM Supine breast device.  The evaluation framework has provided a comprehensive assessment of these devices based on the pre-defined criteria.  Using the evaluation framework, our institution has been able to nominate a preferred solution moving forward.

Conclusion: The evaluation undertaken has provided evidence based decision making to inform our future equipment purchases.  Collaboration across five campuses has resulted in a consensus approach to equipment purchase, which will standardise the treatment approach and ensure the same quality of care across all campuses.  The framework devised is adaptable to be used in the evaluation of other stabilisation equipment.