ABSTRACT
Background: The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the dosimetry benefits, changes in pulmonary function, and clinical outcome of online adaptive MR-guided SBRT. Methods: From 11/2020-07/2022, 45 consecutive patients with 59 lesions underwent multi-fraction SBRT (3-8 fractions) at our institution. Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-proven NSCLC or lung cancer/metastases diagnosed via clinical imaging. Endpoints were local control (LC) and overall survival (OS). We evaluated PTV/GTV dose coverage, organs at risk exposure, and changes in pulmonary function (PF). Acute toxicity was classified per the National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Results: The median PTV was 14.4 cm3 (range: 3.4 - 96.5 cm3). In total 195/215 (91%) plans were reoptimised. In the reoptimised vs. predicted plans, PTV coverage by the prescribed dose increased in 94.6% of all fractions with a median increase in PTV VPD of 5.6% (range: -1.8 - 44.6%, p < 0.001), increasing the number of fractions with PTV VPD ≥ 95% from 33% to 98%. The PTV D95% and D98% (BED10) increased in 93% and 95% of all fractions with a median increase of 7.7% (p < 0.001) and 10.6% (p < 0.001). The PTV D95% (BED10) increased by a mean of 9.6 Gy (SD: 10.3 Gy, p < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 21.4 months (95% CI: 12.3-27.0 months), 1- and 2-year LC rates were 94.8% (95% CI: 87.6 - 100.0%) and 91.1% (95% CI: 81.3 - 100%); 1- and 2-year OS rates were 85.6% (95% CI: 75.0 - 96.3%) and 67.1 % (95% CI: 50.3 - 83.8%). One grade ≥ 3 toxicity and no significant reduction in short-term PF parameters were recorded. Conclusions: Online adaptive MR-guided SBRT is an effective, safe and generally well tolerated treatment option for lung tumours achieving encouraging local control rates with significantly improved target volume coverage.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Large-scale, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based SARS-CoV-2 testing is expensive, resource intensive, and time consuming. A self-collection approach is a probable alternative; however, its feasibility, cost, and ability to prevent infections need to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare an innovative self-collection approach with a regular SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy in a large European industrial manufacturing site. METHODS: The feasibility of a telemedicine-guided PCR-based self-collection approach was assessed for 150 employees (intervention group) and compared with a regular SARS-CoV-2 testing approach used for 143 employees (control group). Acceptance, ergonomics, and efficacy were evaluated using a software application. A simulation model was implemented to evaluate the effectiveness. An interactive R shiny app was created to enable customized simulations. RESULTS: The test results were successfully communicated to and interpreted without uncertainty by 76% (114/150) and 76.9% (110/143) of the participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively (P=.96). The ratings for acceptability, ergonomics, and efficacy among intervention group participants were noninferior when compared to those among control group participants (acceptability: 71.6% vs 37.6%; ergonomics: 88.1% vs 74.5%; efficacy: 86.4% vs 77.5%). The self-collection approach was found to be less time consuming (23 min vs 38 min; P<.001). The simulation model indicated that both testing approaches reduce the risk of infection, and the self-collection approach tends to be slightly less effective owing to its lower sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The self-collection approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was found to be technically feasible and well rated in terms of acceptance, ergonomics, and efficacy. The simulation model facilitates the evaluation of test effectiveness; nonetheless, considering context specificity, appropriate adaptation by companies is required.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic reliability and practicability of self-collected oropharyngeal swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection as self-sampling could enable broader testing availability and reduce both personal protective equipment and potential exposure. METHODS: Hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were asked to collect two oropharyngeal swabs (SC-OPS1/2), and an additional oropharyngeal swab was collected by a health care professional (HCP-OPS). SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for samples from 58 participants was performed, with a 48-h delay in half of the self-collected samples (SC-OPS2). The sensitivity, probability of concordance, and interrater reliability were calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess predictive factors. Practicability was evaluated through a questionnaire. RESULTS: The test sensitivity for HCP-OPS, SC-OPS1, and SC-OPS2 was 88%, 78%, and 77%, respectively. Combining both SC-OPS results increased the estimated sensitivity to 88%. The concordance probability between HCP-OPS and SC-OPS1 was 77.6% and 82.5% between SC-OPS1 and SC-OPS2, respectively. Of the participants, 69% affirmed performing future self-sampling at home, and 34% preferred self-sampling over HCP-guided testing. Participants with both positive HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 indicating no challenges during self-sampling had more differences in viral load levels between HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 than those who indicated challenges. Increasing disease duration and the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG correlated with negative test results in self-collected samples of previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. CONCLUSION: Oropharyngeal self-sampling is an applicable testing approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Self-sampling tends to be more effective in early versus late infection and symptom onset, and the collection of two distinct samples is recommended to maintain high test sensitivity.
