Background

Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) is a common tool used to treat Arteriovenous Malformations (AVMs) in anatomical locations associated with a risk of surgical complications. Despite high rates of clinical effectiveness, SRS carries a risk of toxicity as a result of radiation injury to brain tissue. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has increased because it may lead to improved PTV conformity and better Normal Tissue (NT) sparing compared to 3D Conformal Radiotherapy (3DCRT). The aim of this study was twofold: 1) to develop simple patient stratification rules for the recommendation of IMRT planning strategies over 3DCRT in the treatment of AVMs with SRS; and 2) to estimate the impact of IMRT in terms of toxicity reduction using retrospectively reported data for symptomatic radiation injury following SRS.

Methods

Thirty-one AVM patients previously treated with 3DCRT were replanned in a commercial treatment planning system using 3DCRT and static gantry IMRT with identical beam arrangements. The radiotherapy planning metrics analyzed included AVM volume, diameter, and volume to surface area ratio. The dosimetric endpoints analyzed included conformity index improvements and NT sparing measured by the maximum NT dose, and the volume of surrounding tissue that received 7Gy and 12Gy.

Results

Our analysis revealed stratified subsets of patients for IMRT that were associated with improved conformity, and those that were associated with decreased doses to normal tissue. The stratified patients experienced an improvement in conformity index by -6-68%, a reduction in the maximum NT dose by -0.5-12.3%, a reduction in the volume of NT receiving 7Gy by 1-8 cc, and a reduction in the volume of NT receiving 12Gy by 0-3.7 cc. The reduction in NT receiving 12Gy translated to a theoretical decrease in the probability of symptomatic injury by 0-9.3%.

Conclusions

This work indicates the potential for significant patient improvements when treating AVMs and provides rules to predict which patients are likely to benefit from IMRT.

Purpose

Online programs may help to engage patients in advance care planning in outpatient settings. We sought to implement an online advance care planning program, PREPARE (Prepare for Your Care; http://www.prepareforyourcare.org), at home and evaluate the changes in advance care planning engagement among patients attending outpatient clinics.

Methods

We undertook a prospective before-and-after study in 15 primary care clinics and 2 outpatient cancer centers in Canada. Patients were aged 50 years or older (primary care) or 18 years or older (cancer care) and free of cognitive impairment. They used the PREPARE website over 6 weeks, with reminders sent at 2 or 4 weeks. We used the 55-item Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey, which measures behavior change processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy, readiness) on 5-point scales and actions relating to substitute decision makers, quality of life, flexibility for the decision maker, and asking doctors questions on an overall scale from 0 to 21; higher scores indicate greater engagement.

Results

In total, 315 patients were screened and 172 enrolled, of whom 75% completed the study (mean age = 65.6 years, 51% female, 35% had cancer). The mean behavior change process score was 2.9 (SD 0.8) at baseline and 3.5 (SD 0.8) at follow-up (mean change = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.49-0.73); the mean action measure score was 4.0 (SD 4.9) at baseline and 5.2 (SD 5.4) at follow-up (mean change = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.54-1.77). The effect size was moderate (0.75) for the former and small (0.23) for the latter. Findings were similar in both primary care and cancer care populations.

Conclusions

Implementation of the online PREPARE program in primary care and cancer care clinics increased advance care planning engagement among patients.

Objectives

To develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness.

Methods

The development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients/family members. In the validation phase, we recruited additional participants into a before-after study. Our primary validation hypothesis was that the tool would reduce scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at 1-2 weeks of follow-up. Our secondary validation hypotheses were that the tool would improve values clarity (reduce scores) more than other DCS subscales and increase engagement in advance care planning (ACP) processes related to identification and discussion of one's values.

Results

In the development phase, the tool received positive overall ratings from 22 patients/family members in hospital (mean score 4.3; 1=very poor; 5=very good) and family practice (mean score 4.5) settings. In the validation phase, we enrolled 157 patients (mean age 71.8 years) from family practice, cancer clinic and hospital settings. After tool completion, decisional conflict decreased (-6.7 points, 95% CI -11.1 to -2.3, p=0.003; 0-100 scale; N=100), with the most improvement seen in the values clarity subscale (-10.0 points, 95% CI -17.3 to -2.7, p=0.008; N=100), and the ACP-Values process score increased (+0.4 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p=0.001; 1-5 scale; N=61).

Conclusions

The Short GVHT is acceptable to end users and has some measure of validity. Further study to evaluate its impact on decision making during serious illness is warranted.

Objectives

To assess the feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of a novel survey, the advance care planning (ACP) Engagement Survey, in various healthcare settings.

Setting

A target sample of 50 patients from each of primary care, hospital, cancer care and dialysis care settings.

Participants

A convenience sample of patients without cognitive impairment who could speak and read English was recruited. Patients 50 and older were eligible in primary care; patients 80 and older or 55 and older with clinical markers of advanced chronic disease were recruited in hospital; patients aged 19 and older were recruited in cancer and renal dialysis centres.

Outcomes

We assessed feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of the ACP Engagement Survey using a 6-point scale. The ACP Engagement Survey measures ACP processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy and readiness) on 5-point Likert scales and actions (yes/no).

Results

196 patients (38-96 years old, 50.5% women) participated. Mean (±SD) time to administer was 48.8±19.6 min. Mean acceptability scores ranged from 3.2±1.3 in hospital to 4.7±0.9 in primary care, and mean relevance ranged from 3.5±1.0 in hospital to 4.9±0.9 in dialysis centres (p<0.001 for both). The mean process score was 3.1±0.6 and the mean action score was 11.2±5.6 (of a possible 25).

Conclusions

The ACP Engagement Survey demonstrated feasibility and acceptability in outpatient settings but was less feasible and acceptable among hospitalised patients due to length. A shorter version may improve feasibility. Engagement in ACP was low to moderate.