Search

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A prospective clinical trial (PERSON study) was conducted to compare anxiety and satisfaction between standard care and a 'person-centered' model of care to meet the informational and supportive needs of patients with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy. The aim of this research was to qualitatively evaluate patients' experiences from optional interviews, acquired as a secondary trial outcome, to gain further insights on the person-centered aspects of their care. Patients receiving locoregional breast radiation therapy, in free-breathing or with an active breath-hold device, were randomized 1:1 to the intervention (person-centered model) or standard care. The intervention included a 45 minute face-to-face pre-CT education with a Radiation Therapist (RTT) and the same RTT performed CT-sim, planning and treatment delivery to maintain continuity of care. Standard care had no dedicated education session led by an RTT, and typically different RTTs were involved across procedures. Patients were offered the option to participate in a semi-structured interview within 2 weeks of completing treatment. These were conducted by a single facilitator and focused on their lived radiation therapy experiences and how it could be improved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using NVivo v.12 by a single observer, with coding reviewed by a second observer. Thematic analysis was conducted separately for each arm to identify themes. A total of 41 (21 intervention, 20 standard care) completed the optional interviews until data saturation was reached. The first theme that emerged focused on the importance of consistent RTTs. Patients in both arms reported a sense of belonging, familiarity and increase in confidence during their radiation therapy experience when cared for by a consistent RTT. Some patients noted that a small, consistent team of RTTs may also provide similar feelings of comfort. Participants in the intervention arm indicated particular value in having this consistency across specific transitions (e.g. between CT-sim and beginning of treatment) to provide a sense of continuity. The second theme identified by patients in both arms was uncertainty in the radiation therapy process as a source of nervousness, particularly for those requiring use of the active breath-hold device. The third theme emphasized by patients in the intervention arm was the importance of a RTT-led education session and its impact on feelings of preparedness. The session provided opportunity for treatment specific questions and allowed for visualization of the process. The insights gained from patients' qualitative experiences with breast radiation therapy supports the role of RTTs in person-centered care. Patients specifically reported on both study arms needing to be well prepared for treatment procedures and familiar with their care team, two aspects of care that are more proactively addressed in the person-centered (intervention) model of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is common in patients undergoing breast radiation treatment (RT), with worse RD in patients with large breasts and after mastectomy. Mepitel Film (MF), a silicone-based polyurethane film with Safetac technology, may reduce RD. We hypothesized that MF might play a role in preventing RD in this group of patients at risk. Patients were randomly assigned to receive MF or standard skin care (2:1 ratio). Patients with large breasts after lumpectomy (bra size ≥ 36 inches or cup size ≥ C) or after mastectomy were eligible. Stratification factors included surgery type (lumpectomy vs. mastectomy), dose fractionation (conventional vs. hypofractionated), and administration of boost/bolus. The primary endpoint was grade (G) 2 or 3 RD using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 during RT and within 3 months of completion of RT. Secondary endpoints included CTCAE G3, incidence of moist desquamation, use of topical antibiotic cream, and patient- (PROs) and clinician- (CRO) reported outcomes using the modified Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (RISRAS) and Skin Symptom Assessment (SSA). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04166799). Between January 2020 and May 2022, 266 patients (66%) were randomly assigned to MF and 137 (34%) to standard care. After removing withdrawn patients, 376 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The incidence of G2 or 3 RD was significantly lower in MF patients compared to standard care (n = 39/251, 15.5%; 95% CI, 11.3-20.6% vs. n = 57/125, 45.6%; 95% CI, 36.7-54.8% respectively, odds ratio [OR]: 0.20, P<.0001). Benefits of MF over standard care remained significant in patients who developed G3 RD (n = 7, 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.1-5.7% vs. n = 17, 13.6%; 95% CI, 8.1-20.9%, OR: 0.19) and moist desquamation (n = 20, 8.0%; 95% CI, 4.9-12.0% vs. n = 24, 19.2%; 95% CI, 12.7-27.1%, OR: 0.36). When evaluating the combined patient and health care professional score using the RISRAS, the MF arm had significantly lower scores than standard care (P<.0001); individual items on the RISRAS also favored MF for PROs (tenderness, discomfort or pain and burning sensation) and CROs (erythema and moist desquamation). Similarly, when assessed by the SSA, blistering/peeling, erythema, pigmentation, and edema in PROs, and pain/soreness, blistering/peeling, erythema, and pigmentation in CROs were significantly reduced in MF. Topical antibiotics were prescribed significantly less frequently in MF (23.1% vs. 43.2%, P<.0001). Three patients removed the film prematurely due to development of an allergic rash (n = 2) and excessive pruritis (n = 1). MF significantly reduces RD in breast cancer patients undergoing RT when compared to the standard care. We recommend changes to the clinical practice for RD prevention and inclusion of MF in high-risk patients in future guideline recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)