Phase 3 trial of domiciliary humidification to mitigate acute mucosal toxicity during radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: first report of Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 07.03 RadioHUM study.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of domicile-based humidification on symptom burden during radiation therapy (RT) for head-and-neck (H&N) cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 2007 through June 2011, 210 patients with H&N cancer receiving RT were randomized to either a control arm or to receive humidification using the Fisher & Paykel Healthcare MR880 humidifier. Humidification commenced on day 1 of RT and continued until Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0, clinical mucositis (CMuc) grade ≤1 occurred. Forty-three patients (42%) met a defined benchmark for humidification compliance and contributed to per protocol (PP) analysis. Acute toxicities, hospitalizations, and feeding tube events were recorded prospectively. The McMaster University Head and Neck Radiotherapy Questionnaire (HNRQ) was used for patient-reported outcomes. The primary endpoint was area under the curve (AUC) for CMuc grade ≥2. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in AUC for CMuc ≥2 between the 2 arms. Humidification patients had significantly fewer days in hospital (P=.017). In compliant PP patients, the AUC for CTCAE functional mucositis score (FMuc) ≥2 was significantly reduced (P=.009), and the proportion who never required a feeding tube was significantly greater (P=.04). HNRQ PP analysis estimates also in the direction favoring humidification with less symptom severity, although differences at most time points did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: TROG 07.03 has provided efficacy signals consistent with a role for humidification in reducing symptom burden from mucositis, but the influence of humidification compliance on the results moderates recommendations regarding its practical utility.

Supporting patients with low health literacy: what role do radiation therapists play?

PURPOSE: Health literacy plays a key role in a patient's ability to use health information and services, and can affect health outcomes. This study aimed to explore radiation therapists' perspectives on how they support people with lower health literacy who are undergoing radiotherapy. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 radiation therapists working in radiation oncology departments in New South Wales, Australia. RESULTS: The four key themes were (1) the process of identifying a patient with low health literacy, (2) the perceived consequences of low health literacy, (3) managing and responding to the needs of different health literacy groups and (4) recommendations to address low health literacy in radiotherapy. Radiation therapists appeared to make an informal, intuitive judgment about a patient's health literacy, using a variety of verbal and non-verbal cues as well as impromptu conversations with the multi-disciplinary team. Patients perceived to have lower health literacy were described as having greater difficulties assimilating knowledge and engaging in self-care. Although participants reported communicating to patients at a basic level initially, they subsequently tailored their communication to match a patient's health literacy. Strategies reported to communicate to low health literacy groups ranged from using lay language with minimal medical terminology, using visual aids (photos), using analogies, reiterating information and asking family members with higher literacy to attend consultations. CONCLUSION: A more structured approach to supporting patients with low health literacy and integrating health literacy training in radiation oncology departments may help to minimise the adverse outcomes typically experienced by this population.