A Phase I trial using local regional treatment, nonlethal irradiation, intratumoral and systemic polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid polylysine carboxymethylcellulose to treat liver cancer: in search of the abscopal effect.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety of an approach to immunologically enhance local treatment of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) by combining nonlethal radiation, local regional therapy with intratumoral injection, and systemic administration of a potent Toll-like receptor (TLR) immune adjuvant. METHODS: Patients with HCC not eligible for liver transplant or surgery were subject to: 1) 3 fractions of 2-Gy focal nonlethal radiation to increase tumor antigen expression, 2) intra-/peri-tumoral (IT) injection of the TLR3 agonist, polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid polylysine carboxymethylcellulose (poly-ICLC), to induce an immunologic "danger" response in the tumor microenvironment with local regional therapy, and 3) systemic boosting of immunity with intramuscular poly-ICLC. Primary end points were safety and tolerability; secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with HCC not eligible for surgery or liver transplant were treated. Aside from 1 embolization-related severe adverse event, all events were ≤grade II. PFS was 66% at 6 months, 39% at 12 months, and 28% at 24 months. Overall 1-year survival was 69%, and 2-year survival 38%. In patients <60 years old, 2-year survival was 62.5% vs. 11.1% in patients aged >60 years (P<0.05). Several patients had prolonged PFS and OS. CONCLUSION: Intra-tumoral injection of the TLR3 agonist poly-ICLC in patients with HCC is safe and tolerable when combined with local nonlethal radiation and local regional treatment. Further work is in progress to evaluate if this approach improves survival compared to local regional treatment alone and characterize changes in anticancer immunity.

Are we failing to communicate? Internet-based patient education materials and radiation safety.

INTRODUCTION: Patients frequently turn to the Internet when seeking answers to healthcare related inquiries including questions about the effects of radiation when undergoing radiologic studies. We investigate the readability of online patient education materials concerning radiation safety from multiple Internet resources. METHODS: Patient education material regarding radiation safety was downloaded from 8 different websites encompassing: (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2) the Environmental Protection Agency, (3) the European Society of Radiology, (4) the Food and Drug Administration, (5) the Mayo Clinic, (6) MedlinePlus, (7) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and (8) the Society of Pediatric Radiology. From these 8 resources, a total of 45 articles were analyzed for their level of readability using 10 different readability scales. RESULTS: The 45 articles had a level of readability ranging from 9.4 to the 17.2 grade level. Only 3/45 (6.7%) were written below the 10th grade level. No statistical difference was seen between the readability level of the 8 different websites. CONCLUSIONS: All 45 articles from all 8 websites failed to meet the recommendations set forth by the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association that patient education resources be written between the 3rd and 7th grade level. Rewriting the patient education resources on radiation safety from each of these 8 websites would help many consumers of healthcare information adequately comprehend such material.

A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from RadiologyInfo.Org.

OBJECTIVE: Health consumers and their families rely on the Internet as a source of authoritative information regarding the procedures used to reach a diagnosis, effect treatment, and influence prognosis. In radiology, online materials can be a means by which to offer patients comprehensible explanations of the capabilities, the risks and rewards, and the techniques under our purview. Consequently, estimations of health literacy should take into account the reading level of the average American when composing and transmitting such information to the lay public without the mediation of a referring physician. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In December 2012, patient education reports from the files of RadiologyInfo.org, a jointly sponsored website of the American College of Radiology and the Radiological Society of North America, were downloaded to assess their textual sophistication. All 138 patient education articles including the glossary were analyzed for their respective level of "readability" using the following 10 evaluative scales: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Grading, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall scale, FORCAST, Fry graph, Raygor Readability Estimate, and New Fog Count. RESULTS: The 138 online patient education articles were written, on average, between the 10th and 14th grade levels, which exceeds both the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health recommendations that patient education resources be comprehensible to those who read no higher than the seventh grade level. CONCLUSION: Patients may accrue a greater benefit from written articles available on RadiologyInfo.org if the texts were revised to be in compliance with the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association grade level recommendations. This could lead to a broadened appreciation of the capabilities of radiology's role in general and enhanced understanding of imaging techniques and their application to clinical practice.

Health literacy in vascular and interventional radiology: a comparative analysis of online patient education resources.

PURPOSE: The Internet is frequently accessed by patients as a resource for medical knowledge. However, the provided material is typically written at a level well above the recommended 7th grade level. A clear understanding of the capabilities, limitations, risks, and benefits of interventional radiology by patients, both current and prospective, is hindered when the textual information offered to the public is pitched at a level of sophistication too high for general comprehension. METHODS: In January 2013, all 25 patient education resources from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe (CIRSE) Web site ( http://www.cirse.org ) and all 31 resources from the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Web site ( http://www.sirweb.org ) were analyzed for their specific level of readability using ten quantitative scales: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning fog index, New Fog Count, Coleman-Liau index, FORCAST formula, Fry graph, Raygor Readability Estimate, and New Dale-Chall. RESULTS: Collectively, the patient education resources on the CIRSE Web site are written at the 12.3 grade level, while the resources on the SIR Web site are written at the 14.5 grade level. CONCLUSION: Educational health care materials available on both the CIRSE and the SIR Web sites are presented in language in the aggregate that could be too difficult for many lay people to fully understand. Given the complex nature of vascular and interventional radiology, it may be advantageous to rewrite these educational resources at a lower reading level to increase comprehension.

Single-incision technique for tunneled central venous access.

PURPOSE: To describe the authors' experience in using a single-incision technique for placing implantable chest ports and tunneled dialysis catheters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implantable chest ports and tunneled dialysis catheters were placed in 130 consecutive unselected patients aged 18 to 81 years over a 6-month period. A micropuncture needle bent into a C shape was used to access the internal jugular vein (IJV) from an infraclavicular access under real-time ultrasonographic (US) guidance. A microwire and sheath were then passed into the superior vena cava; this was followed by placement of the tunneled catheter either through a peel-away sheath (implantable chest port) or de novo over the wire (tunneled dialysis catheter). Technical success of procedure performance, total US and procedure times, and adverse procedural outcomes were documented for each case. Follow-up for infections and catheter outcomes was performed, with an average follow-up of 2 months. RESULTS: One hundred thirty of the 131 placements were successful. Fifty-eight implantable chest ports and 72 tunneled dialysis catheters were placed. Four implantable chest ports and 16 tunneled dialysis catheters were placed via the left IJV; the remainder were placed via the right IJV. There were no procedure-related complications. The average US and total procedure times were the same as those for a conventional technique. The lack of a second incision in the lower neck improved the cosmetic result. CONCLUSIONS: The single-incision technique for tunneled central venous access is feasible and safe. Total US and procedure times are within the range of those with a conventional technique. Cosmetically, this technique is superior to the conventional technique.