PubMed · 6566252
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Keller. 1984-08-01. The personal touch.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6566252/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: At the William Buckland Radiotherapy Center (WBRC), field-only electronic portal image (EPI) hard copies are used for radiation treatment field verification for whole brain, breast, chest, spine, and large pelvic fields, as determined by a previous study. A subsequent research project, addressing the quality of double exposed EPI hard copies for sites where field only EPI was not considered adequate to determine field placement, has been undertaken. The double exposed EPI hard copies were compared to conventional double exposed port films for small pelvic, partial brain, and head and neck fields and for a miscellaneous group. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All double exposed EPIs were captured during routine clinical procedures using liquid ion chamber cassettes. EPI hard copies were generated using a Visiplex multi-format camera. In sites where port film remained the preferred verification format, the port films were generated as per department protocol. In addition EPIs were collected specifically for this project. Four radiation oncologists performed the evaluation of EPI and port film images independently with a questionnaire completed at each stage of the evaluation process to assess the following: Adequacy of information in the image to assess field placement. Adequacy of information for determining field placement correction. Clinician's preferred choice of imaging for field placement assessment RESULTS: The results indicate that double exposed EPI hard copies generally do containsufficient information to permit evaluation of field placement and can replace conventionaldouble exposed port films in a significant number of sites. These include the following:pelvis fields < 12 X 12 cm, partial brain fields, and a miscellaneous group. However forradical head and neck fields, the preferred verification image format remained port film dueto the image hard copy size and improved contrast for this media. Thus in this departmenthard copy EPI is the preferred modality of field verification for all sites except radical headand neck treatments. This should result in an increase in efficiency of workloadmanagement and patient care.
BACKGROUND: During a 5-year period, we analyzed 3 patient subsets from the University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) Registry and published the results. In each instance, editorial review has raised legitimate concerns regarding the UW-QOL instrument that deserve public comment. We present our response to these criticisms. Since our original publication (1993), we have added domains to the original UW-QOL instrument. These additions reflected our concern that we might be missing important elements in the spectrum of disease-specific response to treatment. Using the data we have accumulated in the last 5 years, we present an analysis of the internal consistency of the UW-QOL. We have identified those domains that are responsive (or not responsive) to treatment effect and have revised the UW-QOL accordingly to create the UW-QOL-R, which is recommended for future use. DESIGN: The project began January 1, 1993, after approval by the UW Human Subjects Committee. Critical comments offered by external review were collated and responded to. Internal consistency was evaluated by interitem correlation matrix (Cronbach alpha) testing. SUBJECTS: All new patients presenting to the UW Medical Center (Seattle) with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer were asked to participate in a prospective analysis of QOL changes during and after treatment. INTERVENTION: Patients completed the pretreatment QOL questionnaire on the day of their initial workup. The format for the pretreatment test was an interviewer-supervised self-administered test; the subsequent tests were self-administered and were completed at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Other data entered for each patient included site, stage, treatment, histologic classification, reconstruction, and current status. A QOL registrar was responsible for patient follow-up, data collection, and collation. All data were entered into the departmental relational database. RESULTS: Criticisms by external review included the following: "it is improper to call it [UW-QOL] a measure of quality of life"; "the summary scale is problematic because it implies that each of the subscales are weighted or 'valued' equally"; "some domain questions relate to surgery specific issues. while others are specific to radiation"; "we were confused by the scoring"; and "the UW-QOL index does not specifically address the psychological impact of the disease and its treatment." After evaluation of internal consistency, the UW-QOL was modified by removing 2 domains that correlated poorly with the others. This resulted in a 10-item instrument (UW-QOL-R) with an overall internal consistency score of 0.85. CONCLUSIONS: The UW-QOL can be effectively and accurately used to compare treatment effects in the management of head and neck cancer. With this revised instrument, the 10 items appear to measure the domains of overall QOL in a highly consistent and reliable fashion over time.