Deep inspiration breath-hold technique in left-sided breast cancer radiation therapy: Evaluating cardiac contact distance as a predictor of cardiac exposure for patient selection.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of voluntary deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) over a free-breathing (FB) technique to minimize cardiac radiation exposure in radiation therapy of left-sided breast cancer. Also, to better select patients for DIBH, the correlation between cardiac contact distance (CCD) and cardiac dose was assessed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-five patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent DIBH and FB planning computed tomography scans, and the 2 plans were compared. Dose-volume histograms were analyzed for heart, left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), left ventricle (LV), and left lung. Axial CCDs and parasagittal CCDs (FB-CCDps) were measured on FB planning computed tomography scans. RESULTS: Dose to heart, LAD, LV, and left lung was significantly lower in DIBH plans than in FB by all metrics. When DIBH was compared with FB, mean dose (Dmean) for heart was 0.9 versus 2.5 Gy; for LAD, 4.0 versus 14.9 Gy; and for LV, 1.1 versus 3.9 Gy (P < .0001), respectively. Seventy-five percent of the patients had a dose reduction of ≥ 0.9 Gy in Dmean to heart, ≥ 3 Gy in Dmean to LAD, and ≥ 1.7 Gy in Dmean to LV. FB-CCDps was associated with an equivalent uniform dose to heart, LAD, and LV for both the DIBH and FB plans (P ≤ .01); FB axial CCD measures were not. CONCLUSIONS: DIBH is a simple and highly effective technique to reduce cardiac exposure without compromising target coverage. FB-CCDps is potentially a very good predictor for cardiac exposure: the longer the FB-CCDps, the higher the dose. Our findings suggest that at least 75% of patients with left-sided breast cancer might benefit from the DIBH technique in terms of potentially clinically relevant dose reduction to cardiac structures, and therefore, it should be instituted as routine clinical practice.

Effects of methylphenidate on fatigue and depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Fatigue is highly prevalent in populations with advanced illness and is often associated with depressed mood. The role of psychostimulant therapy in the treatment of these conditions remains ill defined. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the response of fatigue and depression in patients with advanced illness to titrated doses of methylphenidate (MP) as compared with placebo. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 30 hospice patients, both inpatients and outpatients, who had fatigue scores of at least four on a scale of zero to 10 (0=no fatigue and 10=worst fatigue), were randomly assigned to receive either 5mg of MP at 8 am and 1 pm or placebo. Doses of MP were titrated every three days according to response and adverse effects. Home care patients were monitored daily by telephone and visited by a research nurse on Study Days 0 (baseline), 3, 7, and 14. Fatigue was assessed using the Piper Fatigue Scale as the primary outcome measure and validated by the Visual Analogue Scale for Fatigue and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) fatigue score. Subjects in inpatient facilities were interviewed or assessed by staff on an identical schedule. Depressive symptoms were assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory-II, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and the ESAS depression score. Primary statistical analysis was conducted using repeated-measures multivariate analysis of the variance. RESULTS: Both MP- and placebo-treated groups had similar measures of fatigue at baseline. Patients taking MP were found to have significantly lower fatigue scores (Piper Fatigue Scale, Visual Analogue Scale for Fatigue, and ESAS) at Day 14 compared with baseline. The improvement in fatigue with MP treatment was dose-dependent; the mean average effective dose was 10mg on Day 3 and 20mg on Day 14 (dose range of 10-40 mg). Placebo-treated individuals showed no significant improvement in fatigue. For patients with clinically significant depression on Day 0, treatment with MP was associated with a significant reduction in all test indices for depressed mood. For the placebo group, the changes in measures of depression were less than observed in the treatment group but were inconsistent between assessment tools. No significant toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: MP reduced symptoms of fatigue and depression when compared with placebo. The effect of MP on fatigue was dose-dependent and sustained over the duration of the study.

Pharmacy-managed anticoagulation: assessment of in-hospital efficacy and evaluation of financial impact and community acceptance.

BACKGROUND: The dangers of thrombosis are well known and yet current therapy presents a paradox; effective methods of pharmacological anticoagulation are available, but underemployed. The risks associated with the use of anticoagulants, especially warfarin, and the requirement of meticulous dosing with subsequent vigilant monitoring provides some explanation for this discrepancy. Efforts have been made to address this incongruity and increase anticoagulation treatment while mitigating complications; these include the development of dosing nomograms, patient self-monitoring of anticoagulation status, and increased pharmacist participation in anticoagulation management. Although the latter option has proven effective in outpatient clinics, its in-hospital application has received less attention. Therefore, our primary goal was to review the published literature to evaluate the efficacy of in-hospital, pharmacy-managed anticoagulation. In addition, our secondary goals were to assess the potential financial benefit and community acceptance of such pharmacist management. METHODS: Potentially relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed; however, because some pharmacy journals are not included in this database, we also used internet search engines to locate articles. We subsequently employed the Science Citation Index to find additional papers that had referenced articles identified by our initial searches. RESULTS: Several pilot studies, focusing primarily on adherence to warfarin dosing guidelines, found general equivalence between pharmacist and physician management and specifically illustrated the potential benefit gained simply through adherence to protocols. Nevertheless, these studies frequently lacked appropriate statistical analysis and examined small, and often heterogeneous, patient groups. Larger comparative studies also possessed some of the same flaws; however, taken together the equivalence and, in some cases improvement, in patient outcomes (e.g., greater control of International Normalized Ratios and decreased length of hospital stay) that they demonstrated suggest the value of increased pharmacist participation in anticoagulation therapy. Studies using heparin-based anticoagulation reported similar positive findings and hence support the warfarin results. Both published studies examining financial implications of in-hospital pharmacy management indicated potential for considerable savings. Finally, although we identified no in-hospital studies of community acceptance, positive survey results indicted that the majority of physicians and patients accepted pharmacy-managed outpatient anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: The reported outcomes of pharmacy-managed in-hospital anticoagulation therapy appear at least equal, and sometimes superior, to those obtained through standard care; however, the lack of large well-designed trials prevents drawing definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, the continued and likely increased future need for anticoagulation in general and warfarin therapy in particular suggests that increased pharmacist involvement could enhance the quality of patient care.

Performance of the provider recognition program's survey to assess patient satisfaction with the provision of diabetes care in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To measure, for the first time, the performance of the American Diabetes Association-National Committee for Quality Assurance Provider Recognition Program (PRP) survey in assessing patient satisfaction with the provision of diabetes care. STUDY DESIGN: Postal survey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The PRP survey satisfaction questions and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire were mailed to a random sample of 607 patients with diabetes attending 3 medical practices (63 primary care providers), with an additional mailing to nonresponders. RESULTS: On face validity, the PRP survey incompletely addressed satisfaction with the provision of diabetes care. The response rate was 67%. The items in the PRP survey were correlated internally (Cronbach alpha coefficient = .89) and with the Overall Satisfaction scale (r = 0.40-0.56; P < .001 for all) of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (concurrent validity). The instrument was skewed toward satisfaction. After recoding all less-than-totally satisfied responses as expressing dissatisfaction, 25% of the surveys indicated dissatisfaction with diabetes care. CONCLUSIONS: The PRP patient satisfaction survey is an internally consistent and valid measure of patient satisfaction. However, it is incomplete and skewed toward satisfaction. Development of a patient dissatisfaction metric might play a more significant role in orienting quality improvement efforts and benchmarking.