Does routine psychosocial screening improve referral to psychosocial care providers and patient-radiotherapist communication? A cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study tests whether using a screening instrument improves referral to psychosocial care providers (e.g. psychologist) and facilitates patient-radiotherapist communication. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was used. Fourteen radiotherapists were randomly allocated to the experimental or control group and 568 of their patients received care in accordance with the group to which their radiotherapist was allocated. Patients in the experimental group were asked to complete a screening instrument before and at the end of the radiation treatment period. All patients were requested to complete questionnaires concerning patient-physician communication after the first consultation and concerning psychosocial care 3 and 12 months post-intervention. RESULTS: Patients who completed the screening instrument were referred to social workers at an earlier stage than patients who did not (P<0.01). No effects were observed for numbers of referred patients, or for improved patient-radiotherapist communication. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a simple screening procedure can be valuable for the timely treatment of psychosocial problems in patients. Future efforts should be directed at appropriate timing of screening and enhancing physicians' awareness regarding the importance of identifying, discussing and treating psychosocial problems in cancer patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Psychosocial screening can be enhanced by effective radiotherapist-patient communication.

Psychosocial screening effects on health-related outcomes in patients receiving radiotherapy. A cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the short-term and long-term effects of using a screening instrument on psychological distress and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. In addition, we investigated the effect of early psychosocial treatment on patients' overall health-related outcomes as previous research showed that patients in the screening condition were referred to a psychosocial caregiver at an earlier stage. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial with a randomisation at the levels of 14 radiotherapists, 568 patients was conducted. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires at 3 and 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Mixed models analyses showed no significant intervention effects on patients' overall extent of psychosocial distress and HRQoL, both on the short and long terms. Post-hoc analyses revealed significant interactions of the intervention with early referral and improved HRQoL and anxiety, suggesting that earlier referral might influence short-term HRQoL and experienced anxiety in patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the use of a psychosocial screening instrument among patients receiving radiotherapy in itself does not sufficiently improve patients' health-related outcome. The effective delivery of psychosocial care depends upon several components such as identification of distress and successful implementation of screening procedures. One of the challenges is to get insight in the effects of early referral of cancer patients for psychosocial support because early referral might have a favourable effect on some of the patients' health-related outcomes.

The usefulness and feasibility of a screening instrument to identify psychosocial problems in patients receiving curative radiotherapy: a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial problems in cancer patients are often unrecognized and untreated due to the low awareness of the existence of these problems or pressures of time. The awareness of the need to identify psychosocial problems in cancer patients is growing and has affected the development of screening instruments. This study explored the usefulness and feasibility of using a screening instrument (SIPP: Screening Inventory of Psychosocial Problems) to identify psychosocial problems in cancer patients receiving curative radiotherapy treatment (RT). METHODS: The study was conducted in a radiation oncology department in The Netherlands. Several methods were used to document the usefulness and feasibility of the SIPP. Data were collected using self-report questionnaires completed by seven radiotherapists and 268 cancer patients. RESULTS: Regarding the screening procedure 33 patients were offered to consult a psychosocial care provider (e.g. social worker, psychologist) during the first consultation with their radiotherapist. Of these patients, 31 patients suffered from at least sub-clinical symptoms and two patients hardly suffered from any symptoms. Patients' acceptance rate 63.6% (21/33) was high. Patients were positive about the content of the SIPP (mean scores vary from 8.00 to 8.88, out of a range between 0 and 10) and about the importance of discussing items of the SIPP with their radiotherapist (mean score = 7.42). Radiotherapists' perspectives about the contribution of the SIPP to discuss the different psychosocial problems were mixed (mean scores varied from 3.17 to 4.67). Patients were more positive about discussing items of the SIPP if the radiotherapists had positive attitudes towards screening and discussing psychosocial problems. CONCLUSIONS: The screening procedure appeared to be feasible in a radiotherapy department. In general, patients' perspectives were at least moderate. Radiotherapists considered the usefulness and feasibility of the SIPP generally to be lower, but their evaluations were mixed. A positive attitude to using screening instruments like the SIPP needs to be encouraged among radiotherapists, as this may not only improve the usefulness of a screening instrument, but also patients' satisfaction with care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00859768.

In vivo dosimetry with a linear MOSFET array to evaluate the urethra dose during permanent implant brachytherapy using iodine-125.

PURPOSE: To develop a technique to monitor the dose rate in the urethra during permanent implant brachytherapy using a linear MOSFET array, with sufficient accuracy and without significantly extending the implantation time. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Phantom measurements were performed to determine the optimal conditions for clinical measurements. In vivo measurements were performed in 5 patients during the (125)I brachytherapy implant procedure. To evaluate if the urethra dose obtained in the operating room with the ultrasound transducer in the rectum and the patient in treatment position is a reference for the total accumulated dose; additional measurements were performed after the implantation procedure, in the recovery room. RESULTS: In vivo measurements during and after the implantation procedure agree very well, illustrating that the ultrasound transducer in the rectum and patient positioning do not influence the measured dose in the urethra. In vivo dose values obtained during the implantation are therefore representative for the total accumulated dose in the urethra. In 5 patients, the dose rates during and after the implantation were below the maximum dose rate of the urethra, using the planned seed distribution. CONCLUSION: In vivo dosimetry during the implantation, using a MOSFET array, is a feasible technique to evaluate the dose in the urethra during the implantation of (125)I seeds for prostate brachytherapy.

The effectiveness of the Screening Inventory of Psychosocial Problems (SIPP) in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: design of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Screening Inventory of Psychosocial Problems (SIPP) is a short, validated self-reported questionnaire to identify psychosocial problems in Dutch cancer patients. The one-page 24-item questionnaire assesses physical complaints, psychological complaints and social and sexual problems. Very little is known about the effects of using the SIPP in consultation settings. Our study aims are to test the hypotheses that using the SIPP (a) may contribute to adequate referral to relevant psychosocial caregivers, (b) should facilitate communication between radiotherapists and cancer patients about psychosocial distress and (c) may prevent underdiagnosis of early symptoms reflecting psychosocial problems. This paper presents the design of a cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT) evaluating the effectiveness of using the SIPP in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. METHODS/DESIGN: A CRCT is developed using a Solomon four-group design (two intervention and two control groups) to evaluate the effects of using the SIPP. Radiotherapists, instead of cancer patients, are randomly allocated to the experimental or control groups. Within these groups, all included cancer patients are randomised into two subgroups: with and without pre-measurement. Self-reported assessments are conducted at four times: a pre-test at baseline before the first consultation and a post-test directly following the first consultation, and three and 12 months after baseline measurement. The primary outcome measures are the number and types of referrals of cancer patients with psychosocial problems to relevant (psychosocial) caregivers. The secondary outcome measures are patients' satisfaction with the radiotherapist-patient communication, psychosocial distress and quality of life. Furthermore, a process evaluation will be carried out. Data of the effect-evaluation will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle and data regarding the types of referrals to health care providers and patient satisfaction about the with radiotherapists will be analysed by means of descriptive techniques. The process evaluation data will also be analysed by means of descriptive techniques. DISCUSSION: Using the SIPP may prevent underdiagnosis of early symptoms reflecting psychosocial problems, should facilitate communication between physicians and patients about psychosocial distress and may contribute to adequate referral to relevant (psychosocial) caregivers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00859768.

In vivo dosimetry using a linear Mosfet-array dosimeter to determine the urethra dose in 125I permanent prostate implants.

PURPOSE: In vivo dosimetry during brachytherapy of the prostate with (125)I seeds is challenging because of the high dose gradients and low photon energies involved. We present the results of a study using metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters to evaluate the dose in the urethra after a permanent prostate implantation procedure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Phantom measurements were made to validate the measurement technique, determine the measurement accuracy, and define action levels for clinical measurements. Patient measurements were performed with a MOSFET array in the urinary catheter immediately after the implantation procedure. A CT scan was performed, and dose values, calculated by the treatment planning system, were compared to in vivo dose values measured with MOSFET dosimeters. RESULTS: Corrections for temperature dependence of the MOSFET array response and photon attenuation in the catheter on the in vivo dose values are necessary. The overall uncertainty in the measurement procedure, determined in a simulation experiment, is 8.0% (1 SD). In vivo dose values were obtained for 17 patients. In the high-dose region (> 100 Gy), calculated and measured dose values agreed within 1.7% +/- 10.7% (1 SD). In the low-dose region outside the prostate (< 100 Gy), larger deviations occurred. CONCLUSIONS: MOSFET detectors are suitable for in vivo dosimetry during (125)I brachytherapy of prostate cancer. An action level of +/- 16% (2 SD) for detection of errors in the implantation procedure is achievable after validation of the detector system and measurement conditions.