Reasons for acceptance and refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials in a regional comprehensive cancer centre in France: protocol for a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: A few studies have highlighted the potential synergy between early palliative care and inclusion in an early-phase clinical trial that may improve quality of life, reduce symptoms of exhaustion related to the side effects of treatment and allow patients to complete their treatment protocol. The primary objective of this qualitative study is to evaluate the reasons for acceptance or refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: All patients from the Centre Léon Bérard (Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Lyon, France) who consent to one of the early-phase clinical trials proposed at the centre will be invited to participate in this study. The cohort will consist of a subgroup (n=20) of patients who accept palliative care together with their clinical trial, and a second subgroup (n=20) of patients who decline it. Patients will be interviewed in exploratory interviews conducted by a psychology researcher before the start of their clinical trial. The interviews will be audio-recorded. Patients will also be asked to complete quality of life and anxiety/depression questionnaires both before the beginning of the treatment and at the end of their clinical trial. The content of the interviews will be analysed thematically. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis of both cohorts will also be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Personal data will be collected and processed in accordance with the laws and regulations in force. All patients will give informed consent to participate. This study complies with reference methodology MR004 of the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés. The protocol has received the validation of an ethics committee (Groupe de Réflexion Ethique du CLB, number: 2020-006). The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04717440.

The use of the term 'radiosensitivity' through history of radiation: from clarity to confusion.

PURPOSES: The term 'radiosensitivity' appeared for the first time at the beginning of the 20th century, few years after the discovery of X-rays. Initially used by French and German radiologists, it illustrated the risk of radiation-induced (RI) skin reactions. From the 1950s, 'radiosensitivity' was progressively found to describe other features of RI response such as RI cancers or cataracts. To date, such confusion may raise legal issues and complexify the message addressed to general public. Here, through an historical review, we aimed to better understand how this confusion appeared. METHODS: To support our historical review, a quantitative and qualitative wording analysis of the 'radiosensitivity' occurrences and its derived terms was performed with Google books, Pubmed, Web of Science™ databases, and in all the ICRP publications. CONCLUSIONS: While 'radiosensitivity' was historically related to RI adverse tissue events attributable to cell death, the first efforts to quantify the RI risk specific to each organ/tissue revealed some different semantic fields that are not necessarily compatible together (e.g. adverse tissue events for skin, cataracts for eyes, RI cancer for breast or thyroid). To avoid such confusion, we propose to keep the historical definition of 'radiosensitivity' to any clinical and cellular consequences of radiation attributable to cell death and to introduce the term 'radiosusceptibility' to describe the RI cancers or any feature that is attributable to cell transformation.

[Motivations and obstacles to occupational disease claims in lung cancer patients: an exploratory psychosocial study]. / Moteurs et freins à la reconnaissance en maladie professionnelle des patients atteints de cancers bronchiques : une étude psychosociale.

PURPOSE: The proportion of lung cancers with an occupational origin has been estimated to be between 10 and 20%. They are largely under-reported, as 60% are not compensated as occupational disease. Although most patients are not familiar with the process of compensation, other factors could explain this under-reporting. The aim of this study was to identify psychosocial factors that could impact patients with occupational lung cancer to claim for compensation. METHODS: We conducted a case study involving semi-structured interviews with eight lung cancer patients enrolled in a cohort designed to systematically screen occupational exposures and propose claims for compensation to work-related cancer patients. RESULTS: Seven interviewed patients were familiar with occupational cancers, but most of them did not believe that past exposure could be related to their current disease. Patients associated compensation claims with a long and complex procedure for an abstract purpose. Several patients expressed a certain attachment to their employers. CONCLUSION: Interviewed patients often considered compensation claims to be a grievance procedure against the employers whom they did not consider to be responsible for their disease. Lung cancer is itself an obstacle to compensation considering the aggressive treatments and related adverse events, the poor medium-term prognosis and the predominant role of smoking in the etiology of the disease. Patients mentioned the financial compensation and the role of healthcare professionals as key elements to motivate them to claim for compensation.

[Personalized medicine in radiotherapy: practitioners' perception]. / Médecine personnalisée en radiothérapie?: perception des praticiens.

This exploratory study was designed to investigate the representations of radiotherapists in relation to personalized medicine. On the basis of current?>' available radiotherapy predictive tests, we tried to understand how these tests could be used in routine radiotherapy practice and in what way this possible change of practices could affect the role of radiotherapists in treatment protocols. In the absence of any available data allowing the construction of a quantitative tool, qualitative data were recorded by individual interviews with radiotherapists. Based on textual data analysis, a second national quantitative phase was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire. Crossover analysis of the two datasets highlighted the interest of radiotherapists in personalized medicine and the use of predictive tests, while indicating certain limitations and concerns in relation to ethical issues related to personalized medicine in oncology and the physician's position.