Search

Purpose: This study aimed to explore: (i) patient perceptions of how they are involved in treatment decisions about radiation therapy; (ii) patient knowledge and understanding of treatment; and (iii) what patients value in their interactions with the radiation therapy treatment team., Method: Patients were recruited through radiation oncology departments at metropolitan hospital sites located in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 radiation therapy patients with different types of cancer. Data were analysed using a Framework analysis to compare and contrast patient experiences., Results: Most patients perceived the decision to undergo radiation therapy as agreeing to radiation oncologists recommendations rather than making a choice, but they trusted their radiation oncologist and were happy to follow their advice. Only a few participants reported their radiation oncologist had explained why radiation therapy was recommended, or discussed the benefits and harms. Some participants did not feel prepared for the intensity and disruption of side effects, and conveyed uncertainty about their diagnosis and the potential risk of recurrence. Most patients, irrespective of their type of cancer, valued the treatment team showing a genuine interest in how the treatment was effecting them, and being made to feel part of the department., Conclusion: Greater opportunities are needed to empower patients to ask questions about their uncertainties and concerns. Improvements in these areas will benefit patients and enable them to feel better prepared and know what to expect before and after their treatment., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Aims: Radiation therapy (RT) is an essential and cost-effective cancer treatment, but it is underutilized in Australia. We aimed to quantify consumers' perceptions of factors that influence RT decisions., Methods: A cross-sectional, survey-based study was conducted in March-August 2012. Potential participants were invited to complete an electronic survey disseminated through multiple patient support and advocacy groups throughout New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Study invitations were also placed in local newspapers across NSW with hard copy surveys mailed to respondents. Current or past cancer patients (and carers) who had been offered RT were eligible to participate regardless of their RT decision., Results: Of the 1191 participants (electronic, n = 1153; hard copy, n = 38), 91% were female, most (88%) were current or past patients, and 78% had accepted RT. Issues commonly perceived to be moderate to strong influencers of RT decisions were: concern about acute and long-term side effects; management of side effects; fear and anxiety regarding RT; lack of awareness of RT; lack of local availability of RT; and lack of RT information resources. Those who declined RT were significantly more likely to highlight practical difficulties with receiving RT., Conclusions: Although availability of RT is well recognized, other issues such as fear and anxiety about RT and perceived side effects appear to feature prominently in consumers' decisions. Perceived practical difficulties with receiving RT may have influenced those who declined RT. There may be a need for information resources, support services and interventions to increase awareness of RT., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objectives: Optimal radiation therapy (RT) utilisation rates (RURs) have been defined for various cancer indications through extensive work in Australia and overseas. These benchmarks remain unrealised. The gap between optimal RUR and actual RUR has been attributed to inadequacies in 'RT access'. We aimed to develop a conceptual framework for the consideration of 'RT access' by examining the literature for existing constructs and translating it to the context of RT services. We further aimed to use this framework to identify and examine factors influencing 'RT access'., Methods: Existing models of health care access were reviewed and used to develop a multi-dimensional conceptual framework for 'RT access'. A review of the literature was then conducted to identify factors reported to affect RT access and utilisation. The electronic databases searched, the host platform and date range of the databases searched were Ovid MEDLINE, 1946 to October 2014 and PsycINFO via OvidSP,1806 to October 2014., Results: The framework developed demonstrates that 'RT access' encompasses opportunity for RT as well as the translation of this opportunity to RT utilisation. Opportunity for RT includes availability, affordability, adequacy (quality) and acceptability of RT services. Several factors at the consumer, referrer and RT service levels affect the translation of this opportunity for RT to actual RT utilisation., Conclusion: 'Access' is a term that is widely used in the context of health service related research, planning and political discussions. It is a multi-faceted concept with many descriptions. We propose a conceptual framework for the consideration of 'RT access' so that factors affecting RT access and utilisation may be identified and examined. Understanding these factors, and quantifying them where possible, will allow objective evaluation of their impact on RT utilisation and guide implementation of strategies to modify their effects.

Introduction: Utilisation of radiation therapy (RT) in Australia is below recommended evidence-based benchmarks. Barriers to the referral of patients for RT and the uptake of RT by patients may be affecting RT utilisation. The current study aimed to examine health professionals' (HPs) perceptions of potential barriers to RT referral and uptake., Methods: A custom survey was developed to assess perceptions regarding the degree to which a range of issues affect decisions regarding RT. Hard copy surveys were disseminated to HPs involved in the care of cancer patients across New South Wales (NSW): medical, radiation and surgical oncologists, physicians (including palliative care), and general practitioners with an interest in oncology. Electronic versions of the survey were disseminated via oncology multidisciplinary teams and professional networks at participating hospitals., Results: Two hundred fifty-three HPs participated via hard copy (n = 208) or electronic (n = 45) surveys. Two-thirds of HPs perceived acute side effects of RT, their management and impact on daily commitments, as well as fear and anxiety about RT, to exert moderate to significant influence on RT decisions. Treatment-related travel, need for accommodation and relocation were also perceived by 64% of HPs to do the same. Over half of HPs rated concern regarding late effects of RT, disruption to family and work life, and the ability to organise family and work commitments around RT, as moderate to significant influences on RT uptake., Conclusion: Perceptions of HPs in NSW reveal potential important influencers of RT decisions by patients and clinicians. An understanding of these additional issues and their actual impact on RT-related decisions may inform future interventions to improve RT access and utilisation., (© 2015 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.)

Introduction: Radiotherapy (RT) is an essential and cost-effective cancer treatment. It is underutilised in Australia. Bridging the gap between actual and optimal RT utilisation requires not only provision of adequate RT infrastructure but also an understanding of the factors that influence the extent to which this opportunity for RT is utilised. This study explored factors perceived to affect RT-related decision making by consumers and health professionals (HPs)., Methods: Six semi-structured focus groups (FGs) and 13 interviews were conducted at three geographical locations in NSW, Australia (n = 26 consumers and 30 HPs). Audio recordings of FGs and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically., Results: An exhaustive list of issues perceived to affect consumer and HP RT decisions was identified. There were common themes across participant groups and locations. Perceptions of RT and its benefits, as well as accurate communication of the expected benefits and risks of RT, were highlighted as important to decision making. Perceived factors relating to 'inconvenience' of RT were multifaceted and included travel, relocation, accommodation, time away from work and financial challenges. Perceived potential barriers to RT referral included knowledge of RT and RT services, availability of a local or visiting RT service, referrer bias, and the low profile of RT., Conclusions: Important drivers during RT decisions appear to include the perceived benefit, risks and inconvenience of RT. Underutilisation of RT may also result from multiple barriers at the referrer level. Further research into whether these factors influence actual RT decisions is needed., (© 2014 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.)

Introduction: Radiation therapy is a common cancer treatment, requiring timely information to help patients prepare for treatment. We pilot tested a low literacy, psycho‐educational talking book (written booklet, with accompanying audio recording) to examine (i) the effect of the tool on knowledge, anxiety and communication; (ii) acceptability, and (iii) how it was used in appointments. Methods: A pre‐post design was employed. Patients scheduled to receive radiation therapy for any cancer were recruited from two hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Participants were sent the talking book before treatment planning and completed baseline and follow‐up surveys, before and after the intervention. Results: Forty participants were recruited, and 39 completed all study assessments. Overall, knowledge increased after receiving the talking book by 3.8 points from 13.9 to 17.7/20 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7, 4.8, P < 0.001). Anxiety and concerns were significantly lower after receiving the talking book (P = 0.015 and P = 0.004, respectively). Nearly half of participants (s = 17, 48%) reported using the book during appointments. Most reported finding it easier to communicate (n = 31, 89%) and to ask more questions (n = 21, 62%). Conclusion: The talking book shows promise in improving knowledge, reducing anxiety and enhancing communication. Strategies to support the implementation of the talking book are required. Further studies to translate the book into different languages are also planned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To develop a low literacy talking book (written book with accompanying audio-recording) about radiation therapy and explore its acceptability with patients and caregivers.Method: The talking book was developed iteratively using low literacy design principles and a multidisciplinary committee comprising consumers and experts in radiation oncology, nursing, behavioural sciences, and linguistics. It contained illustrations, photos, and information on: treatment planning, daily treatment, side effects, psychosocial health, and a glossary of medical terms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who self-reported low functional health literacy and caregivers to explore their views on the resource. Thematic analysis using a framework approach informed the analysis.Results: Participants were very satisfied with the content, illustrations, and language in the resource. Most were unfamiliar with the term 'talking book', but liked the option of different media (text and audio). The resource was seen as facilitating communication with the cancer care team by prompting question-asking and equipping patients and their families with knowledge to communicate confidently.Conclusions: The low literacy talking book was well accepted by patients and their caregivers. The next step is to examine the effect of the resource on patients' knowledge, anxiety, concerns, and communication with the cancer care team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Radiation therapy (RT) is an essential and cost-effective cancer treatment, but it is underutilized in Australia. We aimed to quantify consumers' perceptions of factors that influence RT decisions. Methods A cross-sectional, survey-based study was conducted in March-August 2012. Potential participants were invited to complete an electronic survey disseminated through multiple patient support and advocacy groups throughout New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Study invitations were also placed in local newspapers across NSW with hard copy surveys mailed to respondents. Current or past cancer patients (and carers) who had been offered RT were eligible to participate regardless of their RT decision. Results Of the 1191 participants (electronic, n = 1153; hard copy, n = 38), 91% were female, most (88%) were current or past patients, and 78% had accepted RT. Issues commonly perceived to be moderate to strong influencers of RT decisions were: concern about acute and long-term side effects; management of side effects; fear and anxiety regarding RT; lack of awareness of RT; lack of local availability of RT; and lack of RT information resources. Those who declined RT were significantly more likely to highlight practical difficulties with receiving RT. Conclusions Although availability of RT is well recognized, other issues such as fear and anxiety about RT and perceived side effects appear to feature prominently in consumers' decisions. Perceived practical difficulties with receiving RT may have influenced those who declined RT. There may be a need for information resources, support services and interventions to increase awareness of RT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a 'low-risk' subset of patients with regional metastatic head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) suitable for treatment with surgery alone and omission of adjuvant radiotherapy. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 168 patients with a single parotid gland or neck nodal metastasis ≤3 cm in size from cutaneous SCC treated with curative intent by surgery ± adjuvant radiotherapy. Results Disease-specific survival for the 33 patients treated with surgery alone was 97% at 5 years. In the subset of 19 patients without extracapsular nodal spread (ECS), there was 1 regional recurrence which was successfully salvaged yielding a 5-year disease-specific survival of 100%. Conclusion In head and neck cutaneous SCC, the subset with a single node ≤3 cm in size without ECS are at low risk of regional failure and death from cutaneous cancer. These patients may be suitable for single-modality therapy with surgery alone. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2012 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Patient relapse following radiotherapy for prostate cancer is of major concern to oncologists. As chemotherapeutic agents have shown promise as radiation sensitizers, we investigated the use of fludarabine monophosphate as a radiation enhancement agent in human LNCaP-LN3, PC3 and LNCaP prostate carcinoma cell lines with different sensitivities to fludarabine and ionizing radiation. Methods: Cells were treated with non-cytotoxic doses of fludarabine for 16 h pre-irradiation or 5 days post-irradiation; survival fractions were determined by clonogenic assay. Cell cycling was also assessed. Results: LNCaP-LN3 cells incubated with 1 μmol/L fludarabine for 5 days post-irradiation were slightly sensitized (1.18 times, P = 0.029), whilst 16 h pre-incubation had no effect on the radiation response. PC3 cells incubated with 10 μmol/L fludarabine for 16 h pre-irradiation were sensitized to ionizing radiation (1.61 times, P < 0.0001), but treatment for 5 days post-irradiation with fludarabine had no effect on their radiosensitivity. Neither fludarabine incubation had any effect on the sensitivity of LNCaP cells to ionizing radiation. A characterization of the cell cycle following 16 h exposure to fludarabine demonstrated that enhanced radiosensitivity of PC3 cells is independent of cell cycle. Conclusion: PC3, but not LN3 or LNCaP cells, were sensitized to ionizing radiation by pre-incubation with 10 μmol/L fludarabine for 16 h (1.61 times, P < 0.0001) but not by post-irradiation exposure to the drug. The enhanced radiosensitivity of PC3 cells is independent of cell cycle. Further studies are required to elucidate the mechanism of fludarabine mediated sensitization in these cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]