Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,203 studies31 sourcesUpdated 26 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Advances in Radiation Oncology

Rapid Response Palliative Radiation Therapy Program: Feasibility and Experience of Implementing a Nonclassical Model

  1. 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Instituto de Radiomedicina (IRAM), Facultad de Medicina Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago de Chile, Chile

Abstract

Purpose: Classical rapid access palliative radiation therapy (RAPRT) programs are typically organized as dedicated clinics designed to enable same-day consultation, simulation, treatment planning, and delivery of palliative radiation therapy. At our institution, urgent and expedited palliative radiation therapy is delivered through an integrated, nonclassical RAPRT model embedded in routine departmental practice. This study describes the implementation and performance of this model.

Methods and Materials: We retrospectively reviewed patients treated by our RAPRT workflow between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2024. Demographic, clinical, treatment-related, and workflow data were collected from the institutional oncology information system and clinical records. Workflow intervals were calculated using electronic timestamps.

Results: A total of 775 patients received 848 treatment courses; 37% were hospitalized at the time of treatment. Fifty-six patients (7.2%) received >1 treatment course, and 15 required reirradiation. The median time from referral to radiation oncology consultation was 1 day (Q1, 1; Q3, 3). Median age was 63 years (Q1, 54; Q3, 73), and the most common primary tumors were lung (25%) and gastrointestinal cancers (17%). Poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 3-4) was observed in 40% of cases. The most common treatment sites were bone (47%) and thorax (19%). A single fraction was prescribed in 797 extracranial courses, representing 94% of all courses. Median total treatment process time was 109 minutes (Q1, 102; Q3, 165), and median time spent in the radiation therapy center was 207 minutes (Q1, 111; Q3, 250). Time to simulation and dosimetry time were the most time-consuming workflow steps, accounting for 24% and 31% of the total workflow duration, respectively.

Conclusions: An integrated, nonclassical RAPRT model using existing departmental resources is feasible and can achieve rapid palliative radiation therapy timelines comparable to those reported by dedicated RAPRT programs. Robust information systems and coordinated electronic workflows are central to the efficient implementation of this model.

Related

  1. Incremental Value of Radiation Dose for Prognostic Stratification Beyond Performance Status in Palliative Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases
    Advances in radiation oncologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  2. Feasibility and barriers to implementing a nurse-led hand hygiene intervention in intensive care units: a mixed-methods study
    Ibtisam M Al-Zaru, Abdul-Monim Batiha, Saleh Moh’d Daradkeh +4
    Journal of Research in NursingPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull textInfectious diseasePMC
  3. Phase 1a Clinical Trial of XRD-0394, a First-in-Class Dual Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated and DNA-Dependent Protein Kinase Inhibitor, in Combination With Palliative Radiation Therapy
    Christopher T. Chen, Michael F. Gensheimer, Tona M. Gilmer +10
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physicsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textMedical imaging & radiologyPMC
  4. Family caregivers’ experience in providing home-based palliative care: A descriptive phenomenological study
    Karolin Adhisty, Mutia Nadra Maulida, Siti Sarahdeaz F +1
    Lentera PerawatPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textEpidemiology & public healthDOAJ
  5. Feasibility of Patient- and Caregiver-Reported Outcome Measures in Incurable Cancer: Implications for Early Palliative Care Communication
    Hsien Seow, Daryl Bainbridge, Rosalyn A. Juergens +9
    Journal of Clinical MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0General medicineCrossref
BibTeX
@article{vargas2026rapid,
  title = {{Rapid Response Palliative Radiation Therapy Program: Feasibility and Experience of Implementing a Nonclassical Model}},
  author = {Andrés Vargas and Hans Rivas and Sebastián Solé},
  journal = {Advances in Radiation Oncology},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.1016/j.adro.2026.102206},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2026.102206},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Rapid Response Palliative Radiation Therapy Program: Feasibility and Experience of Implementing a Nonclassical Model
AU  - Andrés Vargas
AU  - Hans Rivas
AU  - Sebastián Solé
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/15
JO  - Advances in Radiation Oncology
DO  - 10.1016/j.adro.2026.102206
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2026.102206
AB  - Purpose: Classical rapid access palliative radiation therapy (RAPRT) programs are typically organized as dedicated clinics designed to enable same-day consultation, simulation, treatment planning, and delivery of palliative radiation therapy. At our institution, urgent and expedited palliative radiation therapy is delivered through an integrated, nonclassical RAPRT model embedded in routine departmental practice. This study describes the implementation and performance of this model.  Methods and Materials: We retrospectively reviewed patients treated by our RAPRT workflow between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2024. Demographic, clinical, treatment-related, and workflow data were collected from the institutional oncology information system and clinical records. Workflow intervals were calculated using electronic timestamps.  Results: A total of 775 patients received 848 treatment courses; 37% were hospitalized at the time of treatment. Fifty-six patients (7.2%) received >1 treatment course, and 15 required reirradiation. The median time from referral to radiation oncology consultation was 1 day (Q1, 1; Q3, 3). Median age was 63 years (Q1, 54; Q3, 73), and the most common primary tumors were lung (25%) and gastrointestinal cancers (17%). Poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 3-4) was observed in 40% of cases. The most common treatment sites were bone (47%) and thorax (19%). A single fraction was prescribed in 797 extracranial courses, representing 94% of all courses. Median total treatment process time was 109 minutes (Q1, 102; Q3, 165), and median time spent in the radiation therapy center was 207 minutes (Q1, 111; Q3, 250). Time to simulation and dosimetry time were the most time-consuming workflow steps, accounting for 24% and 31% of the total workflow duration, respectively.  Conclusions: An integrated, nonclassical RAPRT model using existing departmental resources is feasible and can achieve rapid palliative radiation therapy timelines comparable to those reported by dedicated RAPRT programs. Robust information systems and coordinated electronic workflows are central to the efficient implementation of this model.
SN  - 2452-1094
ER  -