Lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered over 4 or 11days: A comparison of acute toxicity and quality of life.

Abstract
PURPOSE:
The optimal duration over which lung SBRT should be delivered is unknown. We conducted a randomized pilot study in patients treated with four fractions of lung SBRT delivered over 4 or over 11days.
METHODS:
Patients with a peripheral solitary lung tumor (NSCLC or pulmonary metastasis) ?5cm were eligible. For NSCLC lung tumors ?3cm, a dose of 48Gy in 4 fractions was used, otherwise 52Gy in 4 fractions was delivered. Patients were randomized to receive treatment over 4 consecutive days or over 11days. The primary end-point was acute grade ?2 toxicity. Secondary end-points included quality of life (QOL) assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires.
RESULTS:
Fifty four patients were enrolled. More patients in the 11day group had respiratory symptoms at baseline. 55.6% patients treated over 4days and 33.3% of patients treated over 11days experienced acute grade ?2 toxicity (p=0.085). Dyspnea, fatigue and coughing domains were worse in the 11day group at baseline. At 1 and 4months, more patients in the 4day group experienced a clinically meaningful worsening in the dyspnea QOL domain compared to the 11day group (44.5% vs 15.4%, p=0.02; 38.5% vs 12.0%, p=0.03, respectively). However, raw QOL scores were not different at these time-points between treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
Grade 2 or higher acute toxicity was more common in the 4day group, approaching statistical significance. More patients treated on 4 consecutive days reported a clinically meaningful increase in dyspnea, although interpretation of these results is challenging due to baseline imbalance between treatment groups. Larger studies are required to validate these results.

The challenge to health professionals when carers resist truth telling at the end of life: a qualitative secondary analysis

Aims and objectives: To draw out the similar complexities faced by staff around
truth-telling in a children’s and adult population and to interrogate the dilemmas faced by staff when informal carers act to block truth-telling.

Background: Policy encourages normalisation of death, but carers may act to protect or prevent the patient from being told the truth. Little is known about the impact on staff.

Design: Secondary analysis of data using a supra-analysis design to identify commonality of experiences.

Methods: Secondary ‘supra-analysis’ was used to transcend the focus of two primary studies in the UK, which examined staff perspectives in a palliative children’s and a palliative adult setting, respectively. The analysis examined new theoretical questions relating to the commonality of issues independently derived in each primary study. Both primary studies used focus groups. Existing empirical data were analysed thematically and compared across the studies.

Results: Staff reported a hiding of the truth by carers and sustained use of activities aimed at prolonging life. Carers frequently ignored the advance of end of life, and divergence between staff and carer approaches to truth-telling challenged professionals. Not being truthful with patients had a deleterious effect on staff, causing anger and feelings of incompetence.

Conclusions: Both children’s and adult specialist palliative care staff found themselves caught in a dilemma, subject to policies that promoted openness in planning for death and informal carers who often prevented them from being truthful with patients about terminal prognosis. This dilemma had adverse psychological effects upon many staff.

Relevance to clinical practice: There remains a powerful death-denying culture in
many societies, and carers of dying patients may prevent staff from being truthful with their patients. The current situation is not ideal, and open discussion of this problem is the essential first step in finding a solution.