Responding empathically to patients: a communication skills training module to reduce lung cancer stigma.
- 作者列表："Banerjee SC","Haque N","Bylund CL","Shen MJ","Rigney M","Hamann HA","Parker PA","Ostroff JS
:Most lung cancer patients report perceiving stigma surrounding their diagnosis, and routine clinical interactions with their health care providers (HCPs) are reported as a common source. The adverse effects of lung cancer stigma are associated with several adverse psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. One potential clinician-level intervention target is empathic communication because of its association with higher rates of patients' satisfaction, treatment adherence, and lower levels of psychological distress. This study describes the conceptual model and evaluation of clinician-targeted empathic communication skills training to reduce lung cancer patients' experience of stigma. The goal of the training module is to enhance clinician recognition and responsiveness to lung cancer patients' empathic opportunities by communicating understanding, reducing stigma and distress, and providing support. Thirty multidisciplinary HCPs working in thoracic oncology, thoracic surgery, or pulmonary medicine participated in 2.25 hr of didactic and experiential training on responding empathically to patients with lung cancer. Overall, participants reported highly favorable evaluations of the training, with at least 90% of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing to 11 of the 12 items assessing clinical relevance, novelty, clarity, and facilitator effectiveness. Participants' self-efficacy to communicate empathically with lung cancer patients increased significantly from pretraining to posttraining, t(29) = -4.58, p < .001. The empathic communication skills training module was feasible and well received by thoracic and pulmonary medicine HCPs and demonstrated improvements in self-efficacy in empathic communication from pretraining to posttraining. The examination of patient outcomes is warranted.
: 大多数肺癌患者报告感知到围绕其诊断的耻辱，与他们的医疗保健提供者 (HCPs) 的常规临床相互作用被报告为常见来源。肺癌污名的不良影响与几种不良的心理社会和行为结局相关。一个潜在的临床医生水平的干预目标是移情沟通，因为它与更高的患者满意率、治疗依从性和更低的心理困扰水平相关。本研究描述了以临床医生为目标的移情沟通技能培训的概念模型和评价，以减少肺癌患者的耻辱体验。培训模块的目标是通过交流理解、减少耻辱和痛苦以及提供支持来提高临床医生对肺癌患者移情机会的认识和反应。30 名在胸部肿瘤、胸外科或肺内科工作的多学科 hcp 参加了 2.25 hr 的肺癌患者情绪应对的说教和经验培训。总体而言，参与者报告了对培训的高度有利评价，至少 90% 的参与者同意或强烈同意 12 个项目中的 11 个评估临床相关性、新颖性、清晰度和促进因素有效性。参与者与肺癌患者情感交流的自我效能从训练前到训练后显著提高，t (29) =-4.58，p
METHODS:BACKGROUND:The objectives of this study are to assess the chest drainage volumes of patients undergoing anatomic resection of non-small cell lung carcinoma and to determine the safety and effectiveness of administering enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis. METHODS:A total of 77 patients were included in the study. A study was conducted on the first group of 42 patients in which enoxaparin prophylaxis (enoxaparin, 40 mg) was subcutaneously injected once a day for a period of three days after the patients underwent anatomic pulmonary resection between March 2016 and March 2018. An enoxaparin-free group was identified and included 35 patients who received no enoxaparin prophylaxis after undergoing anatomic pulmonary resection between February 2013 and February 2016. We compared the changes in hemoglobin (Hb) levels, postoperative 3-day drainage volume, transfusion volume, pulmonary complications and length of stay between the two groups. RESULTS:No differences in postoperative Hb levels, chest drainage volume, transfusion volume, postoperative complications, and length of stay were observed between the two groups. Deep-vein thrombosis was noted in a patient in the enoxaparin-free group. No major bleeding was noted in either group. CONCLUSION:We found that for patients undergoing anatomic resection of primary lung cancer, the blood transfusion and chest drainage volumes did not differ, regardless of whether the patients were given enoxaparin. To the best of our knowledge, the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin on chest tube drainage volume for patients undergoing anatomic resection of non-small cell lung carcinoma has not been investigated before.
METHODS::The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of cryoablation (CA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC treated with CA (n=45) or MWA (n=56) were enrolled in the present study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) time and adverse events (AEs). The median PFS times between the two groups were not significantly different (P=0.36): CA, 10 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5-12.4] vs. MWA, 11 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.4). The OS times between the two groups were also not significantly different (P=0.07): CA, 27.5 months (95% CI, 22.8-31.2 months) vs. MWA, 18 months (95% CI, 12.5-23.5). For larger tumors (>3 cm), patients treated with MWA had significantly longer median PFS (P=0.04; MWA, 10.5 months vs. CA, 7.0 months) and OS times (P=0.04; MWA, 24.5 months vs. CA, 14.5 months) compared patients treated with CA. However, for smaller tumors (≤3 cm), median PFS (P=0.79; MWA, 11.0 months vs. CA, 13.0 months) and OS times (P=0.39; MWA, 30.0 months vs. CA, 26.5 months) between the two groups did not differ significantly. The incidence rates of AEs were similar in the two groups (P>0.05). The number of applicators, tumor size and length of the lung traversed by applicators were associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax and intra-pulmonary hemorrhage in the two groups. Treatment with CA resulted in significantly less intraprocedural pain compared with treatment with MWA (P=0.001). Overall, the present study demonstrated that CA and MWA were comparably safe and effective procedures for the treatment of small tumors. However, treatment with MWA was superior compared with CA for the treatment of large tumors.
METHODS:BACKGROUND:BRAF mutations occurring in 1%-5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are therapeutic targets for these cancers but the impact of the exact mutation on clinical activity is unclear. The French National Cancer Institute (INCA) launched the AcSé vemurafenib trial to assess the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in cancers with various BRAF mutations. We herein report the results of the NSCLC cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Tumour samples were screened for BRAF mutations in INCA-certified molecular genetic centres. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours progressing after ≥1 line of treatment were proposed vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Between October 2014 and July 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the NSCLC cohort. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed every 8 weeks (RECIST v1.1). A sequential Bayesian approach was planned with an inefficacy bound of 10% for ORR. If no early stopping occurred, the treatment was of interest if the estimated ORR was ≥30% with a 90% probability. Secondary outcomes were tolerance, response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS:Of the 118 patients enrolled, 101 presented with a BRAFV600 mutation and 17 with BRAFnonV600 mutations; the median follow-up was 23.9 months. In the BRAFnonV600 cohort, no objective response was observed and this cohort was stopped. In the BRAFV600 cohort, 43/96 patients had objective responses. The mean Bayesian estimated success rate was 44.9% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 35.2%-54.8%]. The ORR had a 99.9% probability of being ≥30%. Median response duration was 6.4 months, median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.8-6.8), and OS was 10 months (95% CI 6.8-15.7). The vemurafenib safety profile was consistent with previous publications. CONCLUSION:Routine biomarker screening of NSCLC should include BRAFV600 mutations. Vemurafenib monotherapy is effective for treating patients with BRAFV600-mutated NSCLC but not those with BRAFnonV600 mutations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02304809.