ABSTRACT
Because of increasing waiting times for adjuvant radiation in the province of Ontario, patients from one Canadian centre were referred to two centres in the United States. This situation provided an opportunity to compare radiation practices.We performed a retrospective review of radiation prescribed to patients following breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer. Patients with positive margins, 4 or more positive lymph nodes, recurrent disease, or large tumours (>5 cm) were excluded. For comparison, we reviewed a random sample of similar patients treated at the Canadian centre during the same period. A total of 120 referred and 217 non-referred patients were eligible for comparison. The analysis included 98 pairs of patients (N = 196), fully matched on age, nodal status, T stage, grade, and estrogen receptor (er) status.Mean patient age was 60.7 years. The median total dose and number of fractions differed between centres [6040 cGy in 32 fractions (United States) vs. 4250 cGy in 16 fractions (Canadian), both p < 0.001). Boost was used more often in the United States (97% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Variation in prescribing patterns was seen. In the United States, seven different schedules for whole-breast irradiation were used; at the Canadian centre, two schedules were prescribed. Predicted radiobiologic effects of these schedules were calculated to be similar.Differences in fractionation patterns were observed between and within U.S. and Canadian centres. Such variability is likely to affect patient convenience and resource utilization. Although patient selection, referring surgeon, and change in policies may account for some of the observed differences, further research is necessary to better understand the causes.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which a new patient information package (NPIP) or a mini version of the same package (mini-NPIP) reduces emotional distress and meets the informational needs of patients arriving at a tertiary cancer centre for the first time. A comprehensive package, NPIP, consisting of procedural information regarding cancer centre location, description of the health care team, treatment services, research, educational activities, accommodation and community services provided at the centre; and a condensed version of the same package, mini-NPIP, were developed. Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed breast, gynaecological, lung and prostate cancer, referred to the centre for the first time were prerandomised to receive NPIP, mini-NPIP or no information package. Patients randomised to NPIP or mini-NPIP were mailed the information package at least one week before their first appointment. On arrival at the centre, patients were administered the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) which measures psychological distress, and interviewed regarding preferences for information and acceptability of the information packages. Of 465 randomised patients, 161 were excluded post-randomisation and 304 completed the entire interview: 100 were randomised to the NPIP, 102 to the mini-NPIP and 102 to the control group. Emotional distress as measured by the BSI was similar for all groups (P = 0.98). Most patients preferred to receive the information (98%), receive it before the first appointment (84%) and by mail (79%). These preferences were more evident for those given the information packages. The majority of patients found the information packages easy to understand (88%) and useful (89%), and no differences were detected between packages. The cost of production and dissemination of NPIP was more than double the cost for mini-NPIP: $ 8.93 vs $ 3.98 (Canadian dollars) per patient. For patients presenting to a cancer centre for the first time, packages of procedural information do not appear to reduce psychological distress, but are preferred by patients. Given the cost of producing NPIP, mini-NPIP is the preferred approach.
