Effect of image registration on 3D absorbed dose calculations in 177Lu-DOTATOC peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an effective MRT (molecular radiotherapy) treatment, which consists of multiple administrations of a radiopharmaceutical labelled with 177Lu or 90Y. Through sequential functional imaging a patient specific 3D dosimetry can be derived. Multiple scans should be previously co-registered to allow accurate absorbed dose calculations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of image registration algorithms on 3D absorbed dose calculation. A cohort of patients was extracted from the database of a clinical trial in PRRT. They were administered with a single administration of 177Lu-DOTATOC. All patients underwent 5 SPECT/CT sequential scans at 1 h, 4 h, 24 h, 40 h, 70 h post-injection that were subsequently registered using rigid and deformable algorithms. A similarity index was calculated to compare rigid and deformable registration algorithms. 3D absorbed dose calculation was carried out with the Raydose Monte Carlo code. The similarity analysis demonstrated the superiority of the deformable registrations (p < .001). Average absorbed dose to the kidneys calculated using rigid image registration was consistently lower than the average absorbed dose calculated using the deformable algorithm (90% of cases), with percentage differences in the range [-19; +4]%. Absorbed dose to lesions were also consistently lower (90% of cases) when calculated with rigid image registration with absorbed dose differences in the range [-67.2; 100.7]%. Deformable image registration had a significant role in calculating 3D absorbed dose to organs or lesions with volumes smaller than 100 mL. Image based 3D dosimetry for 177Lu-DOTATOC PRRT is significantly affected by the type of algorithm used to register sequential SPECT/CT scans.

Evaluation of the impact of support for nursing research on scientific productivity in seven Italian hospitals: A multiple interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: Nursing research is not well-developed in Italy, and knowledge of the methodologies for conducting research is lacking. In several hospitals, including those in which this study was conducted, a research center has been established to support and educate nurses on how to conduct clinical research. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In this observational study, we sought to assess whether establishing a support center for nursing research has resulted in an increase in scientific production in terms of the numbers of protocols approved (primary outcome), articles published and nurse authors involved in the publications (secondary outcomes). DESIGN: Multiple interrupted time series. METHODS: Data from 2002 to 2012 were collected in seven hospitals. Research centers have been established at various times in only four of these hospitals. RESULTS: A statistically significant increase in the primary outcome (the number of protocols approved by the Research Ethics Committee in which the principal investigator was a nurse) was observed in two hospitals approximately 2years after establishing a research center. The number of nursing research articles published in scientific journals with an impact factor increased but was not statistically significant. Finally, the number of nurse authors increased significantly in two hospitals with support units. Definitive conclusions could not be reached for the other two experimental hospitals because notably few post-intervention data were available. In the control hospitals, the scientific production outcomes did not change. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that establishing a support center for nursing research inside hospitals can facilitate the production of research.

Reducing unnecessary hospital days to improve quality of care through physician accountability: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Over 20% of hospital bed use is inappropriate, implying a waste of resources and the increase of patient iatrogenic risk. METHODS: This is a cluster, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, carried out in a large University Hospital of Northern Italy, aiming to evaluate the effect of a strategy to reduce unnecessary hospital days. The primary outcome was the percentage of patient-days compatible with discharge. Among secondary objectives, to describe the strategy's effect in the long-term, as well as on hospital readmissions, considered to be a marker of the quality of hospital care. The 12 medical wards with the longest length of stay participated. Effectiveness was measured at the individual level on 3498 eligible patients during monthly index days. Patients admitted or discharged on index days, or with stay >90 days, were excluded. All ward staff was blinded to the index days, while staff in the control arm and data analysts were blinded to the trial's objectives and interventions. The strategy comprised the distribution to physicians of the list of their patients whose hospital stay was compatible with discharge according to a validated Delay Tool, and of physician length of stay profiles, followed by audits managed autonomously by the physicians of the ward. RESULTS: During the 12 months of data collection, over 50% of patient-days were judged to be compatible with discharge. Delays were mainly due to problems with activities under medical staff control. Multivariate analysis considering clustering showed that the strategy reduced patient-days compatible with discharge by 16% in the intervention vs control group, (OR=0.841; 95% CI, 0.735 to 0.963; P=0.012). Follow-up at 1 year did not yield a statistically significant difference between the percentages of patient-days judged to be compatible with discharge between the two arms (OR=0.818; 95% CI, 0.476 to 1.405; P=0.47). There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission and mortality rates for all eligible patients (N=3498) between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that a strategy, involving physician direct accountability, can reduce unnecessary hospital days. Relatively simple interventions, like the one assessed in this study, should be implemented in all hospitals with excessive lengths of stay, since unnecessary prolongation may be harmful to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01422811.