浅田 裕美

Purpose: Patients undergoing radiotherapy often have their skin marked. Previous studies on skin markings examined the durability and physical effects of the markings, but no study has focused on patients' emotional experiences toward the markings. This study aimed to clarify how patients undergoing radiotherapy feel about skin markings, as well as factors that affect patients' emotional experiences. Patients and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire and medical records. Participants were patients aged ≥20 years undergoing cancer radiotherapy at a designated cancer care hospital. The primary outcome was the level of uncomfortable emotions toward skin markings, and the secondary outcome was the level of favorable ratings on skin markings. To examine factors related to uncomfortable emotions, ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: Questionnaire forms were distributed to 153 patients, and responses were collected from 132 (86%). Among 108 patients included in the analysis, 56% (59/105, excluding 3 who did not answer this question) responded that they were uncomfortable with skin markings. The proportion of patients who favorably rated skin markings was 63% (59/93, excluding 15 who did not answer this question). No factors were significantly associated with the primary outcome. Conclusion: Many patients accepted skin markings with resignation, as they understood the necessity of the markings in their treatment. Medical staff should understand the emotional experiences of patients toward skin markings and take sufficient care to ensure that they are provided with explanations, including the impact of skin markings on their daily lives, as well as a sense of security that treatment is being performed in a precise manner.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We created a scoring system incorporating dosimetric and clinical factors to assess the risk of severe, acute skin reactions in patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to treat head and neck cancer (HNC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 101 consecutive patients who received definitive IMRT or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with a prescription dose of 70 Gy to treat HNC between 2013 and 2017 in our hospital were enrolled. Skin V5Gy, V10Gy, V20Gy, V30Gy, V40Gy, V50Gy, and V60Gy values delivered 5 mm within the body contour were compared between patients with Grades 1-2 and Grade 3 dermatitis. A scoring system was created based on logistic regression analysis (LRA) that identified the most significant dosimetric and clinical factors. RESULTS: The V60Gy was significantly associated with radiation dermatitis grade in both LRA and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). A scoring system incorporating the V60Gy, concurrent chemotherapy status, age, and body mass index was used to divide all patients into three subgroups (0-1, 2-3, and 4-6 points) in the RPA. The incidence of Grade 3 dermatitis significantly differed among the subgroups (0, 20.5, and 58.6%, respectively, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A risk analysis model incorporating dose-volume parameters successfully predicted acute skin reactions and will aid in the appropriate management of radiation dermatitis.

This study assessed agreement between radiation oncologist- and cancer patient-reported perceptions about cancer diagnosis, time since diagnosis, treatment purpose, and whether life expectancy had been discussed; and described preferences for prognosis discussions. Adult cancer patients receiving radiotherapy at a Japanese hospital were invited to complete a touchscreen tablet survey. Patient survey responses were linked and comparisons made with a survey completed by their radiation oncologist. Among 146 cancer patient-oncologist dyads, there was almost perfect agreement on cancer diagnosis (ĸ = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94), substantial agreement on time since diagnosis (ĸ = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.83) and moderate agreement on whether treatment goal was curative or palliative (ĸ = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57; all p's < 0.0001). Agreement about whether a life expectancy discussion had occurred was less than expected by chance (κ = -0.06, p = 0.9). Radiation oncologists reported that they had spoken to over two thirds of patients about this, whilst less than one third of patients stated that this discussion had occurred with their radiation oncologist. Over half of the patients who had not discussed life expectancy wanted to. Patients had variable preferences for whether they (80%), their radiation oncologist (78%) or their partner/family (52%) should decide whether they discuss their life expectancy. Although patient self-reported information about diagnosis and time since diagnosis appears to be reasonably accurate (compared with clinician-reported information), limitations of self-reported data about prognostic discussions were highlighted by poor agreement between patient- and clinician-reported information about whether prognostic discussions have occurred. Additional support is needed to improve prognosis communication and understanding in radiation oncology settings.