Umeå universitets logga

Purpose: The purpose of this blinded, randomized clinical trial was to compare two topical agents (Calendula Weleda (R) cream vs. Essex (R) cream) in reducing the risk of severe acute radiation skin reactions (ARSR) in relation to adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for breast cancer.

Method: The primary endpoint was the difference in proportion of patients with ARSR, assessed with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/The Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Acute Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria (RTOG/EORTC scale) at follow-up. The secondary endpoints included patient reported outcome measures; Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), Sleep disturbances (MOS-sleep questionnaire) and symptoms from the irradiated area (visual analogue scale). Patients' experiences and adherence to the topical agents were also evaluated.

Results: A total of 420 patients were randomised and 411 were analysed. With the exception of previous chemotherapy, the treatment groups were well balanced, both regarding treatment- and patient-related factors. The incidence of severe ARSR (RTOG/EORTC grade <= 2) at the follow-up visit was 23% (n = 45) in the Calendula group and 19% (n = 38) in the Essex group. We found no difference in severe ARSR between the groups at any point of assessment. The patients reported low levels of skin related symptoms and no statistically significant differences between the groups were found.

Conclusions: No differences in ARSR between patients randomised to Calendula or Essex cream was found. ARSR seem to be a relatively limited problem, probably more influenced by treatment related factors than by choice of skin care products in this patient group.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to determine whether there is a relationship between cancer patients' perceptions of the person-centeredness of their treatment experience and their anxiety levels during treatment.

METHOD: A questionnaire was distributed to adult cancer patients going through external beam radiotherapy (RT) with curative intent at a university hospital in Sweden (n = 892), which included two surveys, the State Trait Anxiety Inventory-state specific questions (STAI-S), and the Patient-centered Climate Questionnaire (PCQ) and additional treatment-specific questions. Eligible patients were provided with the questionnaire on their seventh day of RT by an RT-nurse.

RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed a significant negative relationship between STAI-S scores and PCQ scores, and a significant positive relationship between the Treatment Environment questions and the STAI-S scores. Multivariate regression modeling found the PCQ subscale of safety to have the strongest negative association with STAI-S scores, showing that a climate of safety can significantly decrease patient situational anxiety levels. On the other hand, difficulty tolerating the overall treatment experience, worry about the treatment equipment, or feelings of isolation or claustrophobia within the treatment room all significantly factor into increases in patient-reported situational anxiety levels.

CONCLUSION: Both the treatment environment and the psychosocial climate of the RT clinic significantly impact cancer patient state anxiety levels. These findings suggest that actively employing a person-centered approach during RT, and designing the treatment environment to be more attentive to the patient experience can both play a significant role in decreasing patient situational anxiety during treatment.

Background

The patient’s perception of external radiotherapy (RT) procedures and equipment is important to evaluate as a complement to endpoints such as treatment outcome and reproducibility. There is a lack of a proper, psychometrically robust instrument to evaluate the patient’s comfort and experience of the external RT procedure. Hence, this study aimed to develop and test an instrument to measure the patient’s experience during external RT.

Material and Methods

A preliminary 34-item questionnaire was generated from research literature, expert consultations and patient interviews, and it was distributed to patients (n = 825) at 8 RT units in Sweden. The answers were subjected to item analysis and reduction by using exploratory factor analysis. The reliability of the final questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. Mean scale scores were compared across gender, length of RT and treatment area.

Results

Most items were highly skewed towards positive responses. Scree plot analyses of the 34-item correlation matrix identified six underlying themes explaining 68% of the total variance. After item reduction, the 6 themes explained 73% of the variance in a 23-item questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory for all themes (between 0.79 and 0.9). Significant differences between treatment areas were found for two scales: situational unease and situational repose.

Conclusion

The RT Experience Questionnaire is a tentatively valid and reliable instrument to measure how patients experience the external RT session process and the environment in the treatment room.

Background: Most cancer patients undergo external radiotherapy (RT) at some stage during their treatment trajectory and RT is often associated with unfamiliar procedures in a highly technical environment. The purpose of this study was to explore how patients experience RT and the related processes, as described in free-text comments in a large Swedish survey with questionnaires including items on psychosocial climate and treatment environment.

Methods: The data consisted of free-text comments from one open-ended question: “Is there anything else you want us to know” and were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results: Of 825 returned questionnaires, 261 contained free-text comments from patients (32%). The analysis of the data resulted in four major categories: experiencing the high-tech RT environment, understanding the RT procedures and side effects, dealing with daily life during RT, and the nurses’ role and performance.

Conclusion: The categories reflect the patients’ experiences and emphasize how important it is to evaluate what really matters to the patients when changing procedures, practices, and how to minimize disturbances in the patients’ daily lives.