Brachytherapy: An emblematic example of extreme hypofractionated regimen

In order to provide more convenient irradiation regimens for patient comfort, radiation facility organization and health expenses, new hypofractionated protocols have been evaluated. Moderately (dose/fraction: 2.3 to 3 Gy), then ultra (dose/fraction: 5.2 to 6.1 Gy) hypofractionated irradiations were first validated. The current question is: is it possible to go forward using extreme hypofractionated regimens (EHR) based on 1 to 3 fractions. Different irradiation techniques are under investigation. However, brachytherapy remains the smartest way to deliver a high dose in a small volume. We report prospective and retrospective study results which evaluated EHR for breast and prostate brachytherapy. While oncological outcome and toxicity profile appear extremely encouraging for low-risk breast cancer after a 1 to 4 fractions (6.25 to 20 Gy/fraction), the use of a single fraction of 19 to 23 Gy appears debatable for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy represents an emblematic example of EHR but longer follow-up and more mature results are awaited in order to specify the right indications and refine the EQD2 calculation method including new biological and technical factors.     

物理治疗翻转课堂教学应用效果的系统综述

目的 系统评价翻转课堂教学模式在物理治疗学教学中的应用效果。方法 计算机检索CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL Plus、Academic Search Premier、Teacher Reference Center、ERIC以及Education Research,纳入翻转课堂教学模式应用于物理治疗学教学的原始研究。检索时限为建库至2021年6月。由2名研究人员独立完成文献筛选、数据提取、质量评价,对翻转课堂教学模式对比传统教学模式在物理治疗学教学中的效果进行综述。结果与结论 共检索文献1 307篇,最终纳入7篇,包括至少770名学生。发表时间集中在2013年至2019年,研究对象为物理治疗学专业学生,主要结局指标为考试成绩。翻转课堂教学模式总体说来可提高学生的笔试成绩,增强高阶思维能力,得到了学生和教师的积极评价。     

Functional and psychosocial impact of COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatic patients’ quality of life in Saudi Arabia

Quality of Life Research - The COVID-19 pandemic might add to the stressors experienced by people living with rheumatic diseases. This study aimed to examine rheumatic patients’ functional...     

Evaluating a Food Pantry–Based Intervention to Improve Food Security,Dietary Intake,and Quality in Midwestern Food Pantries

BackgroundVoices for Food was a longitudinal community, food pantry–based intervention informed by the social ecological model, and designed to improve food security, dietary intake, and quality among clients, which was carried out in 24 rural food pantries across 6 Midwestern states.ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate changes in adult food security, dietary intake, and quality from baseline (2014) to follow-up (2016), and to assess the role of adult food security on dietary outcomes.DesignA multistate, longitudinal, quasi-experimental intervention with matched treatment and comparison design was used to evaluate treatment vs comparison group changes over time and changes in both groups over time.Participants/settingAdult food pantry clients (n = 617) completed a demographic food security survey, and up to three 24-hour dietary recalls at baseline (n = 590) and follow-up (n = 160).InterventionCommunity coaching served as the experimental component, which only “treatment” communities received, and a food council guide and food pantry toolkit were provided to both “treatment” and matched “comparison” communities.Main outcome measuresChange in adult food security status, mean usual intakes of nutrients and food groups, and Healthy Eating Index-2010 scores were the main outcome measures.Statistical analyses performedLinear mixed models estimated changes in outcomes by intervention group and by adult food security status over time.ResultsImprovements in adult food security score (–0.7 &#177; 0.3; P = .01), Healthy Eating Index-2010 total score (4.2 &#177; 1.1; P < .0001), and empty calories component score (3.4 &#177; 0.5; P <.0001) from baseline to follow-up were observed in treatment and comparison groups, but no statistically significant changes were found for adult food security status, dietary quality, and usual intakes of nutrients and food groups between the 2 groups over time. The intervention effect on dietary quality and usual intake changes over time by adult food security status were also not observed.ConclusionsFood pantry clients in treatment and comparison groups had higher food security and dietary quality at the follow-up evaluation of the Voices for Food intervention trial compared with baseline, despite the lack of difference among the groups as a result of the experimental coaching component.