Search

Purpose: The use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), and hypofractionated regimen requires adequate patient setup accuracy to achieve an optimal outcome. The purpose of this study was to assess the setup accuracy of patients receiving left‐sided breast cancer radiotherapy using deep inspiration breath‐hold technique (DIBH) and surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) and to calculate the corresponding setup margins. Methods: The patient setup accuracy between and within radiotherapy fractions was measured by comparing the 6DOF shifts made by the SGRT system AlignRT with the shifts made by kV‐CBCT. Three hundred and three radiotherapy fractions of 23 left‐sided breast cancer patients using DIBH and SGRT were used for the analysis. All patients received pre‐treatment DIBH training and visual feedback during DIBH. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test patient setup differences for statistical significance. The corresponding setup margins were calculated using the van Herk's formula. Results: The intrafractional patient setup accuracy was significantly better than the interfractional setup accuracy (p < 0.001). The setup margin for the combined inter‐ and intrafractional setup error was 4, 6, and 4 mm in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions if based on SGRT alone. The intrafractional error contributed ≤1 mm to the calculated setup margins. Conclusion: With SGRT, excellent intrafractional and acceptable interfractional patient setup accuracy can be achieved for the radiotherapy of left‐sided breast cancer using DIBH and modern radiation techniques. This allows for reducing the frequency of kV‐CBCTs, thereby saving treatment time and radiation exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women are more likely to develop breast cancer if their first‐degree relatives (FDRs) have the disease, but they are often unaware of their individual risk and conduct screening behaviors. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in increasing breast self‐examination, clinical breast examination, and mammography rates in FDRs of breast cancer patients. Methods: We selected randomized clinical trials and quasi‐experimental studies in eight databases. Interventions in each study were categorized as "promising", or "non‐promising" according to whether they led to a positive change in screening behaviors. Interventions were also coded using the Behavioral Change Techniques (BCTs) Taxonomy and a promise ratio calculated for each. BCTs with a promise ratio ≥2 was classified as "promising". Results: Thirteen studies with 21 different BCTs were included. The most frequent BCTs were "Prompts/cues", "Credible source", and "Instructions on how to perform the behavior". Seven BCTs had a promise ratio of ≥2 and the four most promising were "Information about health consequences" (promise ratio = 6), "Problem solving" (promise ratio = 4), "Demonstration of the behavior" (promise ratio = 4), and "Adding objects to the environment" (promise ratio = 4). Conclusions: This review indicated an overall weak use of theory, and an insufficient description of several interventions to support the assessment of how specific BCTs were activated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]