Effect of the Adoption of a Comprehensive Electronic Health Record on Graduate Medical Education: Perceptions of Faculty and Trainees.

OBJECTIVES: Health systems are adopting electronic health records (EHRs). There are few studies on the effects of EHR implementation on graduate medical education. The authors sought to longitudinally assess perceptions of the impact of EHRs on graduate medical education during implementation and 2 years after implementation. METHODS: A survey was distributed to faculty and trainees during the first year (2013) of adoption of the EHR system. A follow-up survey was distributed 2 years later (2015). The χ2 test was used to compare the quantitative responses, and factor analysis was conducted to identify correlations between items. Free text responses were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: The initial survey (in 2013) included 290 faculty and 106 trainees; the follow-up survey (in 2015) included 353 faculty and 226 trainees. In 2013, respondents had a positive impression of EHRs. During the implementation phase, participants believed that face-to-face teaching was negatively affected (P = 0.001). Faculty believed EHRs had a negative effect on trainees' ability to take a history/conduct physical examinations (P = 0.002) and to formulate a differential diagnosis/plan independently (P = 0.003). In 2015, faculty opinions of the impact of the EHR remained unchanged; trainee responses were more positive than in 2013 in some areas. Qualitative analysis showed that the most frequent strategies to enhance the educational process were the development of EHR skills and improved chart access and note assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents remain positive about the EHR 2 years after implementation. Faculty remain concerned about its effect on the educational process, whereas residents appear more positive regarding the potential for EHRs to enhance their education.

Tolerance doses for late adverse events after hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer on trial NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) regimens for prostate cancer are emerging, but tolerance doses for late adverse events are scarce. The purpose of this study is to define dose-volume predictors for late gastrointestinal and genitourinary (GI and GU) toxicities after HRT in the multi-center NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415 low-risk prostate cancer trial (N = 521). MATERIAL/METHODS: Treatment in the studied HRT arm was delivered as 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction with 3D-CRT/IMRT (N = 108/413). At a median follow-up of 5.9 years, the crude late ≥Grade 2 GI and GU toxicities were 19% and 29%, respectively. For modeling, the complete HRT cohort was randomly split into training and validation (70% and 30%; preserved toxicity rates). Within training, dose-response modeling was based on dose-volume cut-points (EQD2Gy; bladder/rectum: α/ß = 6 Gy/3Gy), age, acute ≥Grade 2 toxicity, and treatment technique using univariate and multivariate logistic regression on bootstrapping (UVA and MVA). Candidate predictors were determined at p ≤ 0.05, and the selected MVA models were explored on validation where model generalizability was judged if the area under the receiver-operating curve in validation (AUCvalidation) was within AUCtraining ±â€¯SD with p ≤ 0.05, and with an Hosmer-Lemeshow p-value (pHL) > 0.05. RESULTS: Three candidate predictors were suggested for late GI toxicity: the minimum dose to the hottest 5% rectal volume (D5%[Gy]), the absolute rectal volume <35 Gy, and acute GI toxicity (AUC = 0.59-0.63; p = 0.02-0.04). The two generalizable MVA models, i.e., D5%[Gy] with or without acute GI toxicity (AUCvalidation = 0.64, 0.65; p = 0.01, 0.03; pHL = 0.45-0.56), suggest that reducing late GI toxicity from 20% to 10% would require reducing D5%[Gy] from ≤65 Gy to ≤62 Gy (logistic function argument: 17+(0.24D5%[Gy])). Acute GU toxicity showed only a trend to predict late GU toxicity (AUCtraining = 0.57; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Late GI toxicity, following moderate HRT for low-risk prostate cancer, increases with higher doses to small rectal volumes. This work provides quantitative evidence that limiting small rectal dose 'hotspots' in clinical practice of such HRT regimens is likely to further reduce the associated rates of GI toxicity.

Interstitial implant alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a survey of practice patterns in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study is aimed at understanding and defining the current patterns of care with respect to prostate brachytherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localized disease in the combined academic and community setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A nomogram-based survey was developed at the Seattle Prostate Institute defining the accepted criteria for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Patients were defined as having intermediate-risk prostate cancer if they met one of the following criteria: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >10 ng/dL, Gleason score (GS) > or = 7, or cT2b or cT2c disease. Additional potential predictive factors including perineural invasion (PNI), GS 3+4 vs. 4+3, and high-volume disease were included. RESULTS: In the absence of PNI, all of those surveyed would perform monotherapy for intermediate-risk patients, GS 7 (3+4) or PSA 10-20, with cT1c and <30% cores +. Up to 80% would perform monotherapy for patients with cT1c, GS 7 (4+3), and <30% cores +. Eighty to 90% of physicians would perform an implant alone with cT2a and either a PSA of 10-20 or GS of 7 (3+4) and <30% cores +. Fifty to 60% of those surveyed stated that they would treat a patient with cT2b disease, GS 7 (3+4), or PSA 11-20, with less than two-thirds of the biopsy cores positive in the absence of PNI. CONCLUSIONS: This Patterns of Care (POC) study reveals that certain subsets of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients are considered appropriate candidates for an interstitial implant alone.

Dosimetry and cancer control after low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To describe the relationship between two commonly used dosimetric quantifiers (dose received by 90% of the prostate [D(90)] and volume receiving 100% of dose [V(100)]) and biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in a cohort of men treated with low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDRPB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The information in this report concerned the first 63 men treated with LDRPB alone at our institution between September 1997 and September 1998. All men had histologically confirmed, clinically localized prostate cancer. All men were treated with(125)I. The prescription dose was 144 Gy according to the Task Group 43 formalism. LDRPB was performed jointly by a radiation oncologist and urologist. Dosimetric quantifiers (D(90), V(100)) were calculated from a CT scan performed 1 month after LDRPB. Biochemical recurrence was defined according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition. Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was estimated using the product-limit method. D(90) and V(100) were examined as putative covariates for bRFS using the proportional hazards regression method. All p values are two-sided. RESULTS: The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 62 months. The median D(90) was 122 Gy (range, 57-171Gy), and in 16 (25%) of 63 patients, the calculated D(90) was >140 Gy. The median V(100) was 81% (range, 51-97%). Nine men developed evidence of biochemical relapse at a median of 19 months (range, 6-38 months). The 5-year estimate of bRFS was 85% (95% confidence interval, 80-90%). The 5-year estimates of bRFS according to D(90) were as follows: D(90) > or =140 Gy, 86%; D(90) <140 Gy, 84% (p = not statistically significant). No threshold value of D(90) was predictive of the 5-year estimates of bRFS until the D(90) was <80 Gy (D(90) > or =80 Gy, 89%; D(90) <80 Gy, 50%; p = 0.02). The 5-year estimates of bRFS according to V(100) were as follows: V(100) > or =85%, 87%; V(100) <85%, 84% (p = not statistically significant). No threshold value of V(100) was predictive of the 5-year estimates of BRFS unless the dosimetry was particularly poor. The 5-year BRFS was 89% if the V(100) was > or =65% compared with 40% if the V(100) was <65% (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The dosimetric or quantifiers described in this report did not predict for bRFS after LDRPB unless the dosimetry was very poor. This finding is not in complete agreement with those of previous reports. Possible reasons for this observation are (1) the study in underpowered, (2) inherent measurement error, (3) dosimetric quantifiers are poor surrogates of the dose received by the cancer, and (4) length of follow-up. Additional work in the area of quality assessment after LDRPB is required.