No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To analyse interfraction setup using two different image guidance modalities for prostate and head-and-neck (H&N) cancer treatment.Materials and methods: Seventy-two prostate and 60 H&N cancer patients, imaged with kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (KVCBCT) or megavoltage fan beam computed tomography (MVFBCT), were studied retrospectively. The daily displacements in mediolateral (ML), craniocaudal (CC) and anteroposterior (AP) dimensions were investigated. The setup errors were calculated to determine the clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-to-PTV) margins.Results: Based on 1,606 KVCBCT and 2,054 MVFBCT scans, average interfraction shifts in ML, CC and AP direction for H&N cases were 0?5 ± 1?5, 20?3 ± 2?0, 0?3 ± 1?7 mm using KVCBCT, 0?2 ± 1?9, 20?2 ± 2?4 and 0?0 ± 1?7 mm using MVFBCT. For prostate cases, average interfraction displacements were 20?3 ± 3?9, 0?2 ± 2?4, 0?4 ± 3?8 mm for MVFBCT and 20?2 ± 2?7, 20?6 ± 2?9, 20?5 ± 3?4 mm for KVCBCT. The calculated CTV-to-PTV margins, if determined by image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) data, were 5?6 mm (H&N) and 7?8 mm (prostate) for MVFBCT, compared with 4?8 mm and 7?2 mm for KVCBCT. We observed no statistically significant difference in daily repositioning using KVCBCT and MVFBCT in early, middle and late stages of the treatment course. Conclusion:In the absence of IGRT, the CTV-to-PTV margin determined using IGRT data, may be varied for different imaging modalities for prostate and H&N irradiation.

BackgroundOutpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) is a safe and effective care delivery system that allows patients to receive intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy outside of the hospital. OPAT patients require frequent follow-up appointments for clinical and laboratory monitoring of common adverse outcomes of any IV antibiotic administration such as line infections, adverse drug events, and reinfection. Despite the known importance of clinical monitoring, patient factors that influence adherence to OPAT appointments are unknown. The objective of this study was to identify factors that influence adherence to OPAT appointments, in order to improve the OPAT program and make adherence easier for patients if possible.Methods80 patients undergoing OPAT between December 2014 and January 2016 were interviewed via telephone regarding the following: reasons for not showing up to appointments, when the first follow up appointment was scheduled, whether they received appointment reminders, transit time, and whether they had to make special arrangements to attend their appointments.ResultsAdherence to follow-up appointments was high (83.8%). 52.5% of initial follow-up appointments were made while patients were still in the hospital. 92% of patients received at least one reminder in the form of a letter (32%), call to cell phone (21%), call to landline (22%), email (17%), or other (1%). Participants mostly cited either transportation (23.4%) or other (30.4%), specifically not feeling well, and work as the reason for missing an appointment.ConclusionThe majority of patients attended all appointments, and of those, almost all received an appointment reminder, suggesting this is an important factor contributing to appointment adherence. These data reveal some of the barriers some patients face. Future studies can examine whether decreased appointment adherence leads to worse clinical outcomes.Figure 1Transportation and other were the most cited reasons for missing appointments.Figure 2The majority of participants received a reminder for an upcoming appointment in the form of a letter.Figure 3The majority of initial follow-up appointments were scheduled while patients were in the hospital.Disclosures G. Allison, Merck: Grant Investigator and Speaker’s Bureau, Grant recipient and Salary

No abstract