G H Lim

PURPOSE: Our survey aimed to document variability in the practice patterns of Canadian radiation oncologists treating high-grade brain tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 20-question survey was developed to address various aspects of treatment: Guidelines usedTypes of fusion protocols usedNumber of treatment phasesMargins for volume delineationDose constraintsThe survey was sent to Canadian radiation oncologists currently treating the central nervous system (cns) as one of their primary sites. RESULTS: We attained a 56% response rate from radiation oncologists across Canada treating cns sites. In their practice, 14% of respondents reported following guidelines from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 32%, from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; and 56%, centre-specific guidelines. Single-phase treatment was reported by 60% of clinicians, and two-phase or multi-phase treatments, by 37%. For clinicians treating in single phase, margins from the gross treatment volume (gtv) to the planning treatment volume (ptv) included 0.5 cm (6%), 1 cm (6%), 1.5 cm (25%), 2.0 cm (56%), 2.5 cm (25%), and 3 cm (12.5%), with some respondents selecting more than one standard margin. For clinicians treating in multiple phases, margins from gtv to ptv in phase 2 included 1 cm (10%), 2.0 cm (40%), 2.5 cm (30%), and 3.0 cm (20%). Variability was also observed in dose constraints to critical structures. All respondents trimmed their margins to bony structures. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows considerable variation in the current treatment by Canadian radiation oncologists of high-grade brain tumours, especially with respect to guidelines followed, number of phases, and overall volume treated. Further studies are thus required to establish the evidence for optimal radiation volumes and phases, especially as brain tumour treatments evolve in the age of mr imaging and chemotherapy.

Background Telehealth interventions where providers offer support and coaching to patients with chronic conditions such as heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are effective in improving health outcomes. However, the understanding of the content and structure of these interactions and how they relate to health care utilization remains incomplete. Objective This study aimed to characterize the content and structure of telecare conversations on lifestyle management for patients with HF and investigate how these conversations relate to health care utilization. Methods We leveraged real-world data from 50 patients with HF enrolled in a postdischarge telehealth program, with the primary intervention comprising a series of telephone calls from nurse telecarers over a 12-month period. For the full cohort, we transcribed 729 English-language calls and annotated conversation topics. For a subcohort (25 patients with both HF and T2DM), we annotated lifestyle management content with fine-grained dialogue acts describing typical conversational structures. For each patient, we identified calls with unusually high ratios of utterances on lifestyle management as lifestyle-focused calls. We further extracted structured data for inpatient admissions from 6 months before to 6 months after the intervention period. First, to understand conversational structures and content of lifestyle-focused calls, we compared the number of utterances, dialogue acts, and symptom attributes in lifestyle-focused calls to those in calls containing but not focused on lifestyle management. Second, to understand the perspectives of nurse telecarers on these calls, we conducted an expert evaluation where 2 nurse telecarers judged levels of concern and follow-up actions for lifestyle-focused and other calls (not focused on lifestyle management content). Finally, we assessed how the number of lifestyle-focused calls relates to the number of admissions, and to the average length of stay per admission. Results In comparative analyses, lifestyle-focused calls had significantly fewer utterances (P=.01) and more dialogue acts (Padj=.005) than calls containing but not focused on lifestyle management. Lifestyle-focused calls did not contain deeper discussions on clinical symptoms. These findings indicate that lifestyle-focused calls entail short, intense discussions with greater emphasis on understanding patient experience and coaching than on clinical content. In the expert evaluation, nurse telecarers identified 24.2% (29/120) of calls assessed as concerning enough for follow-up. For these 29 calls, nurse telecarers were more attuned to concerns about symptoms and vitals (19/29, 65.5%) than lifestyle management concerns (4/29, 13.8%). The number of lifestyle-focused calls a patient had was modestly (but not significantly) associated with a lower average length of stay for inpatient admissions (Spearman ρ=-0.30; Padj=.06), but not with the number of admissions (Spearman ρ=-0.03; Padj=.84). Conclusions Our approach and findings offer novel perspectives on the content, structure, and clinical associations of telehealth conversations on lifestyle management for patients with HF. Hence, our study could inform ways to enhance telehealth programs for self-care management in chronic conditions.