比较两种Elekta系统中mr引导放疗与传统CBCT的患者可接受性:一项基于问卷的调查

IF 0.3 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice Pub Date : 2022-07-21 DOI:10.1017/S1460396922000206
L. Whiteside, C. Nelder, E. Pitt, C. Hodgson, A. Choudhury, C. Eccles
{"title":"比较两种Elekta系统中mr引导放疗与传统CBCT的患者可接受性:一项基于问卷的调查","authors":"L. Whiteside, C. Nelder, E. Pitt, C. Hodgson, A. Choudhury, C. Eccles","doi":"10.1017/S1460396922000206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background and Purpose: The magnetic resonance linear accelerator system (MR Linac) is a novel piece of radiotherapy (RT) equipment allowing the routine application of daily MR-guided treatment adaptation. The hardware design required for such technical capabilities and the increased complexity of the treatment workflow entails a notable departure from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based RT. Patient tolerability of treatment is paramount to RT practice where high compliance is required. Presented is a comparative analysis of how such modality specific characteristics may ultimately impact the patient experience of treatment. Materials and Methods: Forty patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer (PCa) on either the MR Linac (n = 20) or a CBCT-based linac (n = 20) were provided with a validated patient reported outcomes measures (PROM’s) questionnaire at fraction 1 and fraction 20. The 18-item questionnaire provided patient responses recorded using a 4-point Likert scale, 0 denoting a response of ‘Not at all’, 1 ‘Slightly’, 2 ‘Moderately’ and 3 signifying ‘Very’. The analysis provided insight into both comparisons between modalities at singular time points (fractions 1 and 20), as well as a temporal analysis within a single modality, denoting changing patient experience. Results: Patients generally found the MR Linac treatment couch more comfortable, however, found the increase in treatment duration harder to tolerate. Responses for all items remained stable between first and last fraction across both cohorts, indicating minimal temporal variation within a single modality. None of the responses were statistically significant at the 0·01 level. Conclusion: Whether radiotherapy for PCa is delivered on a CBCT linac or the MR Linac, there is little difference in patient experience with minimal experiential variation within a single modality.","PeriodicalId":44597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing patient acceptability of MR-guided radiotherapy to conventional CBCT on two Elekta systems: a questionnaire-based survey\",\"authors\":\"L. Whiteside, C. Nelder, E. Pitt, C. Hodgson, A. Choudhury, C. Eccles\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1460396922000206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background and Purpose: The magnetic resonance linear accelerator system (MR Linac) is a novel piece of radiotherapy (RT) equipment allowing the routine application of daily MR-guided treatment adaptation. The hardware design required for such technical capabilities and the increased complexity of the treatment workflow entails a notable departure from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based RT. Patient tolerability of treatment is paramount to RT practice where high compliance is required. Presented is a comparative analysis of how such modality specific characteristics may ultimately impact the patient experience of treatment. Materials and Methods: Forty patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer (PCa) on either the MR Linac (n = 20) or a CBCT-based linac (n = 20) were provided with a validated patient reported outcomes measures (PROM’s) questionnaire at fraction 1 and fraction 20. The 18-item questionnaire provided patient responses recorded using a 4-point Likert scale, 0 denoting a response of ‘Not at all’, 1 ‘Slightly’, 2 ‘Moderately’ and 3 signifying ‘Very’. The analysis provided insight into both comparisons between modalities at singular time points (fractions 1 and 20), as well as a temporal analysis within a single modality, denoting changing patient experience. Results: Patients generally found the MR Linac treatment couch more comfortable, however, found the increase in treatment duration harder to tolerate. Responses for all items remained stable between first and last fraction across both cohorts, indicating minimal temporal variation within a single modality. None of the responses were statistically significant at the 0·01 level. Conclusion: Whether radiotherapy for PCa is delivered on a CBCT linac or the MR Linac, there is little difference in patient experience with minimal experiential variation within a single modality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396922000206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396922000206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要背景和目的:磁共振直线加速器系统(MR-Linac)是一种新型的放射治疗设备,可用于日常磁共振引导下的治疗适应。这种技术能力所需的硬件设计和治疗工作流程的复杂性增加,与基于锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)的RT有着显著的不同。患者对治疗的耐受性对于要求高依从性的RT实践至关重要。本文对这种特定模式的特征如何最终影响患者的治疗体验进行了比较分析。材料和方法:对40名在MR-Linac(n=20)或基于CBCT的Linac(n=2 0)上接受前列腺癌症(PCa)RT的患者在第1部分和第20部分提供经验证的患者报告结果测量(PROM)问卷。18项问卷提供了使用4点Likert量表记录的患者反应,0表示“完全没有”,1表示“轻微”,2表示“中等”,3表示“非常”。该分析提供了对单个时间点(分数1和20)模态之间的比较以及单个模态内的时间分析的见解,表示患者体验的变化。结果:患者通常发现MR Linac治疗沙发更舒适,但发现治疗时间的增加更难忍受。在两个队列中,所有项目的反应在第一部分和最后一部分之间保持稳定,表明单一模式内的时间变化最小。在0.01水平上,没有任何反应具有统计学意义。结论:无论PCa的放射治疗是在CBCT直线加速器上还是在MR直线加速器上进行,患者体验差异不大,单一模式下的体验变化最小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing patient acceptability of MR-guided radiotherapy to conventional CBCT on two Elekta systems: a questionnaire-based survey
Abstract Background and Purpose: The magnetic resonance linear accelerator system (MR Linac) is a novel piece of radiotherapy (RT) equipment allowing the routine application of daily MR-guided treatment adaptation. The hardware design required for such technical capabilities and the increased complexity of the treatment workflow entails a notable departure from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based RT. Patient tolerability of treatment is paramount to RT practice where high compliance is required. Presented is a comparative analysis of how such modality specific characteristics may ultimately impact the patient experience of treatment. Materials and Methods: Forty patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer (PCa) on either the MR Linac (n = 20) or a CBCT-based linac (n = 20) were provided with a validated patient reported outcomes measures (PROM’s) questionnaire at fraction 1 and fraction 20. The 18-item questionnaire provided patient responses recorded using a 4-point Likert scale, 0 denoting a response of ‘Not at all’, 1 ‘Slightly’, 2 ‘Moderately’ and 3 signifying ‘Very’. The analysis provided insight into both comparisons between modalities at singular time points (fractions 1 and 20), as well as a temporal analysis within a single modality, denoting changing patient experience. Results: Patients generally found the MR Linac treatment couch more comfortable, however, found the increase in treatment duration harder to tolerate. Responses for all items remained stable between first and last fraction across both cohorts, indicating minimal temporal variation within a single modality. None of the responses were statistically significant at the 0·01 level. Conclusion: Whether radiotherapy for PCa is delivered on a CBCT linac or the MR Linac, there is little difference in patient experience with minimal experiential variation within a single modality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice is a peer-reviewed journal covering all of the current modalities specific to clinical oncology and radiotherapy. The journal aims to publish research from a wide range of styles and encourage debate and the exchange of information and opinion from within the field of radiotherapy practice and clinical oncology. The journal also aims to encourage technical evaluations and case studies as well as equipment reviews that will be of interest to an international radiotherapy audience.
期刊最新文献
Wobbling nature of gamma passing rate as a function of calibration field sizes in patient-specific quality assurance Secondary fragmentation and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) study using Bridge SOI microdosimeter: Monte Carlo simulation Keratin-based topical cream for radiation dermatitis during head and neck radiotherapy: a randomised, open-label pilot study. Single catheter 3d volume based hybrid inverse planning optimization in IVBT can improve organ sparing – CORRIGENDUM Dosimetric case study of 3-D FiF vs. VMAT techniques in the treatment of H/N tumour
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1