Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Lancet ; 395(10237): 1613-1626, 2020 05 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32580883

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify a five-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy (radiation therapy) delivered in 1 week that is non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and is as safe as an international standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Here, we present 5-year results of the FAST-Forward trial. METHODS: FAST-Forward is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiotherapy centres and 50 referring hospitals) in the UK. Patients aged at least 18 years with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3, pN0-1, M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy were eligible. We randomly allocated patients to either 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks), 27 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week), or 26 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week) to the whole breast or chest wall. Allocation was not masked because of the nature of the intervention. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as ≤1·6% excess for five-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio [HR] of 1·81). Normal tissue effects were assessed by clinicians, patients, and from photographs. This trial is registered at isrctn.com, ISRCTN19906132. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2011, and June 19, 2014, we recruited and obtained consent from 4096 patients from 97 UK centres, of whom 1361 were assigned to the 40 Gy schedule, 1367 to the 27 Gy schedule, and 1368 to the 26 Gy schedule. At a median follow-up of 71·5 months (IQR 71·3 to 71·7), the primary endpoint event occurred in 79 patients (31 in the 40 Gy group, 27 in the 27 Gy group, and 21 in the 26 Gy group); HRs versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 0·86 (95% CI 0·51 to 1·44) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 0·67 (0·38 to 1·16) for 26 Gy in five fractions. 5-year incidence of ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy was 2·1% (1·4 to 3·1); estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were -0·3% (-1·0 to 0·9) for 27 Gy in five fractions (probability of incorrectly accepting an inferior five-fraction schedule: p=0·0022 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions) and -0·7% (-1·3 to 0·3) for 26 Gy in five fractions (p=0·00019 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions). At 5 years, any moderate or marked clinician-assessed normal tissue effects in the breast or chest wall was reported for 98 of 986 (9·9%) 40 Gy patients, 155 (15·4%) of 1005 27 Gy patients, and 121 of 1020 (11·9%) 26 Gy patients. Across all clinician assessments from 1-5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 1·55 (95% CI 1·32 to 1·83, p<0·0001) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 1·12 (0·94 to 1·34, p=0·20) for 26 Gy in five fractions. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effect risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy versus 40 Gy. INTERPRETATION: 26 Gy in five fractions over 1 week is non-inferior to the standard of 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for local tumour control, and is as safe in terms of normal tissue effects up to 5 years for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/radioterapia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Neoplasias da Mama/mortalidade , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Mastectomia/métodos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Metástase Neoplásica , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/epidemiologia , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Hipofracionamento da Dose de Radiação , Lesões por Radiação/epidemiologia , Lesões por Radiação/etiologia , Radioterapia Adjuvante/efeitos adversos , Radioterapia Adjuvante/métodos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Reino Unido/epidemiologia
2.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun ; 9(1): 414, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36439048

RESUMO

Work-related communication volume within the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) has had little systematic research previously. The impact of communication volume on work-life balance of healthcare staff in the NHS is also not known and has not been an area of focus or governance. COVID-19 led to a shift to non-physical work, with greater reliance on digital communication for clinical decision making. We sought to elucidate the relationship between communication, work-life balance, and COVID-19. An online survey was conducted to assess the platforms used to communicate professionally, the volume of and time spent on work-related communications, how this has changed from before to during COVID-19, and the effect on work-life balance. A total of 3047 healthcare staff provided consent and evaluable data. Emails were reported as the most frequently used communication tool, and the majority of staff asked, reported increased work-related communications due to COVID-19. Staff estimated receiving 14 emails on an average day before COVID-19. During the pandemic, staff estimated getting approximately 17 emails on an average day and 29 emails on a busy day. Work communications reportedly took up increased amounts of family and home time during COVID-19. A large proportion (36%) of staff were unable to switch off from work-related communications already before COVID-19, worsening (57%) during the pandemic. Work-related digital communication is a vital component of working in the NHS. We provide the first detailed data on the types, volume, and impact of such communication on NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to pre-pandemic levels. We found that 82% of staff support the need for NHS guidance on work-related communications to help manage overload, protect emotional wellbeing, and increase resilience. Further work is urgently needed in this area to tackle the negative impact of communication technologies (technostress) on work-life balance to reduce staff stress, burnout, and turnover or early retirement of some staff.

3.
Trials ; 22(1): 397, 2021 Jun 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34127033

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: For patients with early breast cancer considered at very-low risk of local relapse, risks of radiotherapy may outweigh the benefits. Decisions regarding treatment omission can lead to patient uncertainty (decisional conflict), which may be lessened with patient decision aids (PDA). PRIMETIME (ISRCTN 41579286) is a UK-led biomarker-directed study evaluating omission of adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer; an embedded Study Within A Trial (SWAT) investigated whether PDA reduces decisional conflict using a cluster stepped-wedge trial design. METHODS: PDA diagrams and a video explaining risks and benefits of radiotherapy were developed in close collaboration between patient advocates and PRIMETIME trialists. The SWAT used a cluster stepped-wedge trial design, where each cluster represented the radiotherapy centre and referring peripheral centres. All clusters began in the standard information group (patient information and diagrams) and were randomised to cross-over to the enhanced information group (standard information plus video) at 2, 4 or 6 months. Primary endpoint was the decisional conflict scale (0-100, higher scores indicating greater conflict) which was assessed on an individual participant level. Multilevel mixed effects models used a random effect for cluster and a fixed effect for each step to adjust for calendar time and clustering. Robust standard errors were also adjusted for the clustering effect. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-one evaluable questionnaires were returned from 809 eligible patients (64%) in 24 clusters between April 2018 and October 2019. Mean decisional conflict scores in the standard group (N = 184) were 10.88 (SD 11.82) and 8.99 (SD 11.82) in the enhanced group (N = 337), with no statistically significant difference [mean difference - 1.78, 95%CI - 3.82-0.25, p = 0.09]. Compliance with patient information and diagrams was high in both groups although in the enhanced group only 121/337 (36%) reported watching the video. CONCLUSION: The low levels of decisional conflict in PRIMETIME are reassuring and may reflect the high-quality information provision, such that not everyone required the video. This reinforces the importance of working with patients as partners in clinical trials especially in the development of patient-centred information and decision aids.


Assuntos
Recidiva Local de Neoplasia , Projetos de Pesquisa , Doença Crônica , Tomada de Decisões , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA