Factors that affect sleep quality: perceptions made by patients in the intensive care unit after thoracic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This study identifies factors affecting sleep patterns among thoracic surgery patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and compares the perceptions of sleep-disturbing factors between nurses and patients. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-two patients and 40 nurses were surveyed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and self-designed questionnaires (for patients and nurses). All statistical analyses were carried out by SPSS, and the following statistical methods were used to evaluate the data: chi-squared test and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 152 patients, 46.1 % reported poor sleep quality during their hospitalization; their PSQI total score was 6.95 ± 3.713. Of these, 69.1 % indicated that their sleep quality was poorer than before; 50.0 % of them changed their sleep patterns. Significant discrepancies exist between nurses and patients in the perceptions of sleep-disturbing factors of patients. CONCLUSION: Thoracic surgical patients' perceptions of their sleep in the ICU indicate poor sleep quality, which is decided by a variety of disturbing factors. Perceptions of these factors varied greatly between surveyed patients and nurses.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly utilized as primary treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Consensus regarding the appropriate patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints for clinical trials evaluating radiation modalities for early stage prostate cancer is lacking. To aid in clinical trial design, this study presents PROs over a 36-month period following SBRT for clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Between February 2008 and September 2010, 174 hormone-naïve patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with 35-36.25 Gy SBRT (CyberKnife, Accuray) delivered in 5 fractions. Patients completed the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 questionnaire at baseline and all follow-ups. The proportion of patients developing a clinically significant decline in each EPIC domain score was determined. The minimally important difference (MID) was defined as a change of one-half the standard deviation from the baseline. Per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0938, we also examined the patients who experienced a decline in EPIC urinary domain summary score of >2 points (unacceptable toxicity defined as ≥60% of all patients reporting this degree of decline) and EPIC bowel domain summary score of >5 points (unacceptable toxicity defined as >55% of all patients reporting this degree of decline) from baseline to 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients at a median age of 69 years received SBRT with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. The proportion of patients reporting a clinically significant decline (MID for urinary/bowel are 5.5/4.4) in EPIC urinary/bowel domain scores was 34%/30% at 6 months, 40%/32.2% at 12 months, and 32.8%/21.5% at 36 months. The patients reporting a decrease in the EPIC urinary domain summary score of >2 points was 43.2% (CI: 33.7%, 54.6%) at 6 months, 51.6% (CI: 43.4%, 59.7%) at 12 months, and 41.8% (CI: 33.3%, 50.6%) at 36 months. The patients reporting a decrease in the EPIC bowel domain summary score of >5 points was 29.6% (CI: 21.9%, 39.3%) at 6 months, 29% (CI: 22%, 36.8%) at 12 months, and 22.4% (CI: 15.7%, 30.4%) at 36 months. CONCLUSION: Following prostate SBRT, clinically significant urinary symptoms are more common than bowel symptoms. Our prostate SBRT treatment protocol meets the RTOG 0938 criteria for moving forward to a Phase III trial comparing it to conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. Notably, between 12 and 36 months, the proportion of patients reporting a significant decrease in both EPIC urinary and bowel domain scores declined, suggesting a late improvement in these symptom domains. Further investigation is needed to elucidate (1) which EPIC domains bear the greatest influence on post-treatment quality of life and (2) at what time point PRO endpoint(s) should be assessed.