Study goal: This study was carried out to answer the following research question: which motivation do healthy volunteers have to participate in phase I clinical trials? - Methods: A literature search was done through Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier, followed by three interviews with volunteers who had recently concluded their participation in a (non-commercial) phase I trial. - Results: Our literature search revealed mainly commercial motives for volunteers to participate in phase I clinical trials. The interviews (with volunteers in a non-commercial trial) showed that other factors may also play a decisive role, such as: (1) wish to support the investigator (2) wish to contribute to science, (3) access to more/better health care (4) sociability: possibility to relax and to communicate with other participants (5) general curiosity. Precondition is that risks and burden are deemed acceptable. - Conclusions: financial remuneration appears to be the predominant motive to participate voluntarily in a clinical trial. Other reasons were also mentioned however, such as general curiosity, the drive to contribute to science and the willingness to help the investigator. In addition, social reasons were given such as possibility to relax and to meet other people. Potential subjects state that they adequately assess the (safety) risks of participating in a trial as part of their decision process.
PurposeCancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) following chemotherapy is commonly reported in breast cancer survivors, even years after treatment. Data from preclinical studies suggest that exercise during chemotherapy may prevent or diminish cognitive problems; however, clinical data are scarce.MethodsThis is a pragmatic follow-up study of two original randomized trials, which compares breast cancer patients randomized to exercise during chemotherapy to non-exercise controls 8.5 years post-treatment. Cognitive outcomes include an online neuropsychological test battery and self-reported cognitive complaints. Cognitive performance was compared to normative data and expressed as age-adjusted z-scores.ResultsA total of 143 patients participated in the online cognitive testing. Overall, cognitive performance was mildly impaired on some, but not all, cognitive domains, with no significant differences between groups. Clinically relevant cognitive impairment was present in 25% to 40% of all participants, regardless of study group. We observed no statistically significant effect of exercise, or being physically active during chemotherapy, on long-term cognitive performance or self-reported cognition, except for the task reaction time, which favored the control group (β = -2.04, 95% confidence interval: -38.48; -2.38). We observed no significant association between self-reported higher physical activity levels during chemotherapy or at follow-up and better cognitive outcomes.ConclusionIn this pragmatic follow-up study, exercising and being overall more physically active during or after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer was not associated with better tested or self-reported cognitive functioning, on average, 8.5 years after treatment. Future prospective studies are needed to document the complex relationship between exercise and CRCI in cancer survivors.
MULTIFILE
PURPOSE: Advanced radiotherapy treatments require appropriate quality assurance (QA) to verify 3D dose distributions. Moreover, increase in patient numbers demand efficient QA-methods. In this study, a time efficient method that combines model-based QA and measurement-based QA was developed; i.e., the hybrid-QA. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the model-based QA and to evaluate time efficiency of the hybrid-QA method.METHODS: Accuracy of the model-based QA was determined by comparison of COMPASS calculated dose with Monte Carlo calculations for heterogeneous media. In total, 330 intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans were evaluated based on the mean gamma index (GI) with criteria of 3%∕3mm and classification of PASS (GI ≤ 0.4), EVAL (0.4 < GI > 0.6), and FAIL (GI ≥ 0.6). Agreement between model-based QA and measurement-based QA was determined for 48 treatment plans, and linac stability was verified for 15 months. Finally, time efficiency improvement of the hybrid-QA was quantified for four representative treatment plans.RESULTS: COMPASS calculated dose was in agreement with Monte Carlo dose, with a maximum error of 3.2% in heterogeneous media with high density (2.4 g∕cm(3)). Hybrid-QA results for IMRT treatment plans showed an excellent PASS rate of 98% for all cases. Model-based QA was in agreement with measurement-based QA, as shown by a minimal difference in GI of 0.03 ± 0.08. Linac stability was high with an average GI of 0.28 ± 0.04. The hybrid-QA method resulted in a time efficiency improvement of 15 min per treatment plan QA compared to measurement-based QA.CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid-QA method is adequate for efficient and accurate 3D dose verification. It combines time efficiency of model-based QA with reliability of measurement-based QA and is suitable for implementation within any radiotherapy department.
