Objective: To examine the trajectory of psychosomatic symptoms and to explore the impact of psychosomatic symptoms on setup error in patients undergoing breast cancer radiotherapy.Methods: A total of 102 patients with...Objective: To examine the trajectory of psychosomatic symptoms and to explore the impact of psychosomatic symptoms on setup error in patients undergoing breast cancer radiotherapy.Methods: A total of 102 patients with early breast cancer who received initial radiotherapy were consecutively recruited. The M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory(MDASI) and three different anxiety scales, i.e., the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale(SAS), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory(STAI), and Anxiety Sensitivity Index(ASI), were used in this study. The radiotherapy setup errors were measured in millimetres by comparing the real-time isocratic verification film during radiotherapy with the digitally reconstructed radiograph(DRR). Patients completed the assessment at three time points: before the initial radiotherapy(T1), before the middle radiotherapy(T2), and before the last radiotherapy(T3).Results: The SAS and STAI-State scores of breast cancer patients at T1 were significantly higher than those at T2 and T3(F=24.44, P<0.001;F=30.25, P<0.001). The core symptoms of MDASI were positively correlated with anxiety severity. The setup errors of patients with high SAS scores were greater than those of patients with low anxiety levels at T1(Z=-2.01, P=0.044). We also found that higher SAS scores were associated with a higher risk of radiotherapy setup errors at T1(B=0.458, P<0.05).Conclusions: This study seeks to identify treatment-related psychosomatic symptoms and mitigate their impact on patients and treatment. Patients with early breast cancer experienced the highest level of anxiety before the initial radiotherapy, and then, anxiety levels declined. Patients with high somatic symptoms of anxiety may have a higher risk of radiotherapy setup errors.展开更多
Objective： The aim of this work was to quantify the extent of set-up errors to conduct a quality assurance （QA） aspect of treatment delivery, verification of the treatment field＇s position on different days using ...Objective： The aim of this work was to quantify the extent of set-up errors to conduct a quality assurance （QA） aspect of treatment delivery, verification of the treatment field＇s position on different days using electronic portal. Methods： This study was carried out on 12 patients, treated for pelvis tumor; and total of 240 images obtained by electronic portal image device （EPID） were analyzed. The EPIs acquire using EPID attached to the Siemens linear accelerator. The anatomy match- ing software （Theraview） was used and displacement in two dimensions were noted for each treatment field to study patient setup errors. Results： The percentages of mean deviations less than 5 mm in X direction were 65% ＆ 92%, from 5-10 mm were 31% ＆ 19% and more than 10 mm were 11% ＆ 9% forNP and lateral direction respectively. The percentages of mean deviations less than 5 mm in Y direction were 65% ＆ 63%, from 5-10 mm were 33% ＆ 28% and more than 10 mm were 22% ＆ 29%. The mean deviations in 2D-vector errors were 〈 5 mm in 47% and 46%, 5-10 mm in 36% and 37% and 〉 10 mm in 37% and 37% of images in the NP and lateral direction respectively. Conclusion： The results revealed that the ranges of set up errors are immobilization method to improve reproducibility. The observed variations were not within the limits..展开更多
文摘Objective: To examine the trajectory of psychosomatic symptoms and to explore the impact of psychosomatic symptoms on setup error in patients undergoing breast cancer radiotherapy.Methods: A total of 102 patients with early breast cancer who received initial radiotherapy were consecutively recruited. The M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory(MDASI) and three different anxiety scales, i.e., the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale(SAS), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory(STAI), and Anxiety Sensitivity Index(ASI), were used in this study. The radiotherapy setup errors were measured in millimetres by comparing the real-time isocratic verification film during radiotherapy with the digitally reconstructed radiograph(DRR). Patients completed the assessment at three time points: before the initial radiotherapy(T1), before the middle radiotherapy(T2), and before the last radiotherapy(T3).Results: The SAS and STAI-State scores of breast cancer patients at T1 were significantly higher than those at T2 and T3(F=24.44, P<0.001;F=30.25, P<0.001). The core symptoms of MDASI were positively correlated with anxiety severity. The setup errors of patients with high SAS scores were greater than those of patients with low anxiety levels at T1(Z=-2.01, P=0.044). We also found that higher SAS scores were associated with a higher risk of radiotherapy setup errors at T1(B=0.458, P<0.05).Conclusions: This study seeks to identify treatment-related psychosomatic symptoms and mitigate their impact on patients and treatment. Patients with early breast cancer experienced the highest level of anxiety before the initial radiotherapy, and then, anxiety levels declined. Patients with high somatic symptoms of anxiety may have a higher risk of radiotherapy setup errors.
文摘Objective： The aim of this work was to quantify the extent of set-up errors to conduct a quality assurance （QA） aspect of treatment delivery, verification of the treatment field＇s position on different days using electronic portal. Methods： This study was carried out on 12 patients, treated for pelvis tumor; and total of 240 images obtained by electronic portal image device （EPID） were analyzed. The EPIs acquire using EPID attached to the Siemens linear accelerator. The anatomy match- ing software （Theraview） was used and displacement in two dimensions were noted for each treatment field to study patient setup errors. Results： The percentages of mean deviations less than 5 mm in X direction were 65% ＆ 92%, from 5-10 mm were 31% ＆ 19% and more than 10 mm were 11% ＆ 9% forNP and lateral direction respectively. The percentages of mean deviations less than 5 mm in Y direction were 65% ＆ 63%, from 5-10 mm were 33% ＆ 28% and more than 10 mm were 22% ＆ 29%. The mean deviations in 2D-vector errors were 〈 5 mm in 47% and 46%, 5-10 mm in 36% and 37% and 〉 10 mm in 37% and 37% of images in the NP and lateral direction respectively. Conclusion： The results revealed that the ranges of set up errors are immobilization method to improve reproducibility. The observed variations were not within the limits..
