RESUMO
The circadian system, a vital temporal regulator influencing physiological processes, has implications for cancer development and treatment response. Our study assessed circadian timing's impact on whole-brain radiotherapy outcomes in brain metastases for personalized cancer therapy insights. The aim of the study was to evaluate circadian influence on radiation treatment timing and its correlation with clinical outcomes and to identify patient populations benefiting from interventions synchronizing circadian rhythms, considering subgroup differences and potential disparities. An IRB-approved retrospective analysis of 237 patients undergoing whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases (2017-2021), receiving over 80% of treatments in the morning or afternoon, was performed. Survival analyses utilized Kaplan-Meier curves. This was a single-institution study involving patients receiving whole-brain radiotherapy. Demographic, disease, and socioeconomic parameters from electronic medical records were collected. Morning treatment (n = 158) showed a trend toward improved overall survival vs. afternoon (n = 79); the median survival was 158 vs. 79 days (p = 0.20, HR = 0.84, CI95% 0.84-0.91). Subgroup benefits for morning treatment in females (p = 0.04) and trends in controlled primary disease (p = 0.11) and breast cancer metastases (p = 0.08) were observed. Black patients exhibited diminished circadian influence. The present study emphasized chronobiological factors' relevance in brain metastases radiation therapy. Morning treatment correlated with improved survival, particularly in specific subgroups. Potential circadian influence disparities were identified, laying a foundation for personalized cancer therapy and interventions synchronizing circadian rhythms for enhanced treatment efficacy.
RESUMO
The LGBTQ+ community experiences cancer disparities due to increased risk factors and lower screening rates, attributable to health literacy gaps and systemic barriers. We sought to understand the experiences, perceptions, and knowledge base of healthcare providers regarding cancer screening for LGBTQ+ patients. A 20-item IRB-approved survey was distributed to physicians through professional organizations. The survey assessed experiences and education regarding the LGBTQ+ community and perceptions of patient concerns with different cancer screenings on a 5-point Likert scale. Complete responses were collected from 355 providers. Only 100 (28%) reported past LGBTQ+-related training and were more likely to be female (p = 0.020), have under ten years of practice (p = 0.014), or practice family/internal medicine (p < 0.001). Most (85%) recognized that LGBTQ+ subpopulations experience nuanced health issues, but only 46% confidently understood them, and 71% agreed their clinics would benefit from training. Family/internal medicine practitioners affirmed the clinical relevance of patients' sexual orientation (94%; 62% for medical/radiation oncology). Prior training affected belief in the importance of sexual orientation (p < 0.001), confidence in understanding LGBTQ+ health concerns (p < 0.001), and willingness to be listed as "LGBTQ+-friendly" (p = 0.005). Our study suggests that despite a paucity of formal training, most providers acknowledge that LGBTQ+ patients have unique health needs. Respondents had a lack of consensus regarding cancer screenings for lesbian and transgender patients, indicating the need for clearer screening standards for LGBTQ+ subpopulations and educational programs for providers.
RESUMO
Background: Social determinants of health directly affect cancer survival. Driven by advances in technology and recent demands due to COVID-19, telemedicine has the ability to improve patient access to care, lower health care costs, and increase workflow efficiency. The role of telemedicine in radiation oncology is not established. Materials and Methods: We conducted an IRB-approved pilot trial using a telehealth platform for the first post-radiation visit in patients with any cancer diagnosis. The primary endpoint was feasibility of using telehealth defined by completion of five telehealth visits per month in a single department. Secondary endpoints included the ability to assess patients appropriately, patient and physician satisfaction. Physicians were surveyed again during the pandemic to determine whether viewpoints changed. Results: Between May 27, 2016 and August 1, 2018, 37 patients were enrolled in the Telehealth in Post-operative Radiation Therapy (TelePORT) trial, with 24 evaluable patients who completed their scheduled telehealth visit. On average, 1.4 patients were accrued per month. All patients were satisfied with their care, had enough time with their physician and 85.7% believed the telehealth communication was excellent. All physicians were able to accurately assess the patient's symptoms via telehealth, whereas 82.3% felt they could accurately assess treatment-related toxicity. Physicians assessing skin toxicity from breast radiation were those who did not feel they were able to assess toxicity. Discussion and Conclusions: Both health care providers and patients have identified telemedicine as a suitable platform for radiation oncology visits. Although there are limitations, telemedicine has significant potential for increasing access of cancer care delivery in radiation oncology.
