Menstrual experience of adolescents in the USA: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, there has been a growing desire to address issues related to menstruation, particularly for adolescent girls. In low-income and middle-income countries, prior literature review of the adolescent menstrual experience suggests the need for further research into the impact and efficacy of interventions with this population. There is evidence to suggest the need for initiatives and research in higher-income countries like the USA. To date, the body of research on adolescent menstrual experience in the USA remains uncharacterised. Therefore, we propose a scoping review of the literature on this subject to better inform on areas for future primary study. METHODS AND ANALYSES: Using the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and expounded on by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute, we will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Public Health Database, Social Science Citation Index, Social Services Abstracts and SocINDEX) and grey literature for relevant studies in consultation with experienced librarians. The abstracts and full-text from each reference will be screened by two independent reviewers for inclusion. Bibliographic data, study characteristics and themes will be extracted from studies selected for inclusion using a rubric created by the research team. Findings will be summarised and a list of subject areas for future primary research will be generated in consultation with stakeholders. The review will be conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items from Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics training for this study is not required, as the research team will review publicly available studies. Stakeholders working in adolescent and menstrual health were consulted in designing this review. We will share key findings with stakeholders and in scholarly journals at the conclusion of the review.

Quality of Regional Nodal Irradiation Plans in Breast Cancer Patients Across a Large Network-Can We Translate Results From Randomized Trials Into the Clinic?

PURPOSE: Regional nodal irradiation (RNI) improved disease-free survival by 3% to 5% in 2 large randomized trials, but this small absolute advantage relies on accurate contouring and dose delivery. We audited our network to determine compliance on regional nodal coverage, contouring, and dosimetric parameters with respect to accepted guidelines. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In our network, we have established a clinical pathway for patients with node-positive breast cancer that guides indications for RNI and dosimetric goals. We reviewed records of 183 patients with nodal macrometastases after upfront surgery or involved nodes of any size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiation treatment plans were examined to determine lymph node volumes treated, whether nodes were contoured, quality of nodal contours, and whether target coverage and normal organ dosimetric constraints were met when RNI was delivered. RESULTS: Despite the presence of macrometastases on sentinel lymph node biopsy, no lymph nodes were treated in 2.2% (4 of 183). Of 179 patients who received nodal irradiation, 18 received radiation to axillary levels 1 and 2 only, and 161 patients received RNI. Overall, regional nodes were not treated despite strong indications in 7.6% (14 of 183). Treated nodes were not contoured for 2.2% (4 of 179), and lymph node contours were unacceptable in 15.4% (27 of 175). Of patients receiving RNI, 14.9% (24 of 161) did not have adequate nodal target volume coverage, mean heart dose was >4 Gy for 3.1% (5 of 161), and lung V20 Gy was >35% for 8.7% (14 of 161). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to indications for regional nodal treatment was high, but nodes were either not contoured or had unacceptable contour quality in 18% of plans, and coverage was inadequate in 15%. Because the small disease-free survival advantage seen in trials may be decreased with these deviations, routine clinical practice requires detailed peer review to fully translate results of clinical trials.