Reduction in patient-reported acute morbidity in prostate cancer patients treated with 81-Gy Intensity-modulated radiotherapy using reduced planning target volume margins and electromagnetic tracking: assessing the impact of margin reduction study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether patient-reported quality of life after high-dose external beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer can be improved by decreasing planning target volume margins while using real-time tumor tracking. METHODS: Study patients underwent radiotherapy with nominal 3-mm margins and electromagnetic real-time tracking. Morbidity was assessed before and at the end of radiotherapy using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires. Changes in scores were compared between the Assessing Impact of Margin Reduction (AIM) study cohort and the comparator Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction with Treatment Quality Assessment (PROST-QA) cohort, treated with conventional margins. RESULTS: The 64 patients in the prospective AIM study had generally less favorable clinical characteristics than the 153 comparator patients. Study patients had similar or slightly poorer pretreatment EPIC scores than comparator patients in bowel, urinary, and sexual domains. AIM patients receiving radiotherapy had less bowel morbidity than the comparator group as measured by changes in mean bowel and/or rectal domain EPIC scores from pretreatment to 2 months after start of treatment (-1.5 vs -16.0, P = .001). Using a change in EPIC score >0.5 baseline standard deviation as the measure of clinical relevance, AIM study patients experienced meaningful decline in only 1 health-related quality of life domain (urinary) whereas decline in 3 health-related quality of life domains (urinary, sexual, and bowel/rectal) was observed in the PROST-QA comparator cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer patients treated with reduced margins and tumor tracking had less radiotherapy-related morbidity than their counterparts treated with conventional margins. Highly contoured intensity-modulated radiotherapy shows promise as a successful strategy for reducing morbidity in prostate cancer treatment.

Lay patient navigator program implementation for equal access to cancer care and clinical trials: essential steps and initial challenges.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer detection, treatment, and outcomes among racial/ethnic minorities and low-income patients are well documented. One way to reduce these disparities is to use patient navigators to address barriers to care. However, little information about optimal characteristics of navigator programs or considerations for those interested in setting up such programs is available. METHODS: The design and implementation of a patient navigator program for underserved cancer patients in an urban, nonacademic community hospital setting is described. The program, which used lay navigators, was conceived as a component of the Urban Latino African American Cancer (ULAAC) Disparities Project in South Los Angeles, a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored project to improve cancer care and clinical trial access for minority and low-income patients. RESULTS: Careful initial planning, including input from a community advisory committee, was essential to smooth program implementation. Thirty-one volunteers completed navigator training in the program's first year of operation. Of 135 patients offered navigation services, 75 (56%) accepted, and preliminary feedback from patients, navigators, and providers suggests high levels of satisfaction with navigation. Standardized templates used by navigators and staff to record key information are proving helpful for monitoring quality and outcomes (such as effectiveness in addressing specific barriers to care) and continually improving the program. CONCLUSIONS: The ULAAC program represents a viable model for developing lay navigator programs in community hospitals. Preliminary assessments suggest that the program has a positive effect on minority and low-income cancer patients' experience with care and reduces barriers to care. Additional time and research are needed, however, to fully assess the impact on care and outcomes.