情绪释放技术对乳腺癌术后化疗患者预期性悲伤的影响

目的 探讨情绪释放技术对改善乳腺癌术后化疗患者预期性悲伤的效果。方法 采用便利抽样法选取乳腺癌术后化疗患者60例为研究对象,采用随机数字表法将其分为对照组和干预组,各30例。对照组给予常规护理,干预组在对照组的基础上实施情绪释放干预疗法。比较干预前后2组心理痛苦程度和预期性悲伤得分水平。结果 干预后,干预组心理痛苦程度低于对照组(t=-17.930,P＜0.001);预期性悲伤总分及各维度得分均低于对照组(P＜0.001)。结论 对乳腺癌术后化疗患者应用情绪释放技术进行护理干预,可以减轻患者心理痛苦程度,降低患者预期性悲伤,值得临床推广应用。     

To what degree could clinical trials in evidence based medicine reflect reality in the treatment of candidemia?

IntroductionEvidenced based medicine (EBM) is necessary to standardize or treatment for infection since EBM is established based on the results of clinical trials. Entry criteria for clinical trials are very strict, and many patients have difficulties in being enrolled in any clinical trials regarding candidemia. It is questionable if the results of clinical trials reflect the real world of general medicine in this case.Patients and methodsFor the purpose of examining how many patients could join any randomized clinical trials for the treatment of candidemia, we reviewed all the candidemia patients in our institute during 2014–2018. The patients were divided into two groups: patients who were eligible for clinical trials (participation possible group), and those who were not (participation impossible group). Exclusion criteria for clinical trials were set based on previous clinical trials.ResultsA total of 70 patients was enrolled in this study. The median age was 73 years (range 36–93 years). Of these, 41 patients (59%) were male. As for site of infections, catheter related blood stream infection was most frequently seen in 37 (53%). Seventeen patients (24%) were classified as participation possible group and 53 patients (76%) were participation impossible group. Comparing the two groups, participation possible group patients have much better performance status, have less comorbidities and have longer overall survival times than participation impossible group patients.ConclusionOnly 24% of candidemia patients were eligible for the clinical trials. Thus, we can see that clinical trials might not correctly reflect the real world among candidemia patients.     

针刺治疗癌症化疗后恶心呕吐疗效的Meta分析＊

目的 系统评价针刺治疗癌症化疗后恶心呕吐的有效性和安全性。方法 采用计算机检索PubMed、荷兰医学文献数据库（Embase）、Cochrane图书馆（Cochrane Library）、中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、维普中文科技期刊全文数据库（VIP）、万方学术期刊全文数据库（Wan fang）建库至2021年02月28日针刺治疗化疗后恶心呕吐的随机对照试验。采用RevMan5.4软件进行Meta分析。结果 本研究共纳入18篇文献，涉及1538名患者。Meta分析结果显示，针刺治疗化疗后的恶心呕吐在有效率（P<0.01，RR=1.17，95%CI=［1.09，1.26］）、症状完全缓解率（恶心：P<0.01，RR=1.42，95%CI=［1.14，1.76］；呕吐：P=0.01，RR=1.18，95%CI=［1.04，1.34］）及Karnofsky功能状态评分（KPS）（P<0.01，MD=3.97，95%CI=［1.55，6.39］］）等方面均优于对照组。亚组分析显示，消化道肿瘤试验组与对照组治疗有效率相当（P=0.45，RR=1.07，95%CI=［0.89，1.29］）；非消化道肿瘤试验组有效率优于对照组（P<0.01，RR=1.29，95%CI=［1.10，1.52］）。同时，试验组药物不良事件发生数远低于对照组，且针刺不良事件发生数较少。结论 针刺治疗癌症化疗后恶心呕吐是安全的，并可以提高有效率、症状完全缓解率，改善化疗后KPS评分，提高患者生活质量。     

What information can we gain from performing adaptive radiotherapy of head and neck cancer patients from the past 10 years?

The aim of the review was to present the current literature status about replanning regarding anatomical and dosimetric changes in the target and OARs in the head and neck region during radiotherapy, to discuss and to analyze factors influencing the decision for adaptive radiotherapy of head and neck cancer patients. Significant progress has been made in head and neck patients’ evaluation and qualification for adapted radiotherapy over the past ten years. Many factors leading to anatomical and dosimetric changes during treatment have been identified. Based on the literature, the most common factors triggering re-plan are weight loss, tumor and nodal changes, and parotid glands shrinkage. The fluctuations in dose distribution in the clinical area are significant predictive factors for patients’ quality of life and the possibility of recovery. It has been shown that re-planning influence clinical outcomes: local control, disease free survival and overall survival. Regarding literature studies, it seems that adaptive radiotherapy would be the most beneficial for tumors of immense volume or those in the nearest proximity of the OARs. All researchers agree that the timing of re-planning is a crucial challenge, and there are still no clear consensus guidelines for time or criteria of re-planning. Nowadays, thanks to significant technological progress, the decision is mostly made based on observation and supported with IGRT verification. Although further research is still needed, adaptive strategies are evolving and now became the state of the art of modern radiotherapy.