According to a new study published today in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. The results of the randomized, prospective phase III clinical trial will also be presented at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting.

“This study is a wake-up call to medical physicists that there are new ways we can add value to patient care,” said Todd F. Atwood, Ph.D., lead author of the study and associate professor and senior associate director of the Transformative of Clinical Physics at the University of California, San Diego. “It shows how care teams can work more effectively with patients when they do treatment decisions and navigate the radiation therapy process.”

Medical physicists work with radiation oncologists to ensure that comprehensive treatment plans are properly tailored to each patient. They also design and direct quality control programs to ensure that treatment is delivered safely, including testing the safety of equipment used in patient treatment.

The new findings suggest that medical physicists can also complement patient education and potentially improve patient outcomes by reducing patient stress related to treatment. “Patients increasingly want to be more involved in their treatment,” said Dr. Atwood. “They’re looking for more information. They usually start by searching the Internet, but what they find is either vague or too complicated. They have unanswered questions that often lead to confusion, stress and restlessness.”

Previous studies have shown that patient-related stress can negatively affect the outcome of radiation therapy. Dr. Atwood and his colleagues hope that by reducing the stress and anxiety associated with their treatments, this approach may also improve patient outcomes.

In this study, scientists randomized 66 patients seeking external beam radiation therapy into two treatment groups: one that received Physics Direct Patient Care (PDPC) before and throughout radiation treatment, and another that did not receive PDPC radiation therapy. Patients had different types of primary cancer, most commonly breast, gynecological, or prostate cancer, and most were receiving radiation therapy for the first time.

In addition to traditional treatment, where patients discuss their treatment with only their radiation oncologist, the PDPC group received two pre-treatment consultations with a medical physicist who explained the technical aspects of their treatment – how the treatment is planned and delivered, how radiation therapy the technology works and “whatever is needed to keep them safe during treatment,” Dr. Atwood said. The medical physicist remained a resource for patients if additional questions arose throughout the treatment process.

Before interacting with patients, the five medical physicists participating in the study completed a patient communication training program that included radiation oncology lectures, role exercises, simulated patient interactions and analysis, and supervised physician-patient consultations that included analysis of these interactions.

Changes in treatment-related anxiety, overall satisfaction with treatment, and satisfaction with their understanding of technical aspects of care were measured over the course of treatment using patient-administered questionnaires.

Patients who received a medical physicist’s consultation had significant improvements in anxiety and both measures of satisfaction compared to those who received treatment without additional consultation. Anxiety did not differ between groups at baseline or after simulation, but it was lower on average for patients who received a medical physicist consultation after the first treatment (30.2 vs. 37.6, 60-point inventory, p = 0.027). By the end of treatment, however, the difference in mean anxiety scores was no longer significant.

To further examine differences in anxiety between the groups, the researchers specifically looked at the number of patients who reported high levels of anxiety throughout treatment. Although there were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with high anxiety at baseline, after simulation assignment, or after the first treatment, a significant difference emerged at the end of treatment (12.5% ​​vs. 38.9% reporting on high anxiety, p = 0.047 ).

While counseling has been helpful for patients in general, Dr. Atwood said it may be especially helpful for patients who are more prone to anxiety. Among those receiving additional counseling, the percentage of patients reporting high levels of anxiety dropped by more than half over the course of treatment, from 31.3% to 12.5%.

The greatest difference between groups was seen in how satisfied patients were with their understanding of the technical aspects of their care. Although there was no difference between the groups at baseline, the group that received additional counseling during the simulation immediately reported greater satisfaction with their technical understanding of care (6.2 vs. 5.1 on a 7-point scale, p = 0.005). Technical satisfaction scores increased for both groups throughout treatment, but they remained significantly higher for patients receiving additional consultations, reaching 6.6 out of seven for this group compared with 5.5 for the standard care group (p = 0.002).

Overall satisfaction was also significantly higher after the first treatment for patients receiving a physical consultation (6.7 vs. 6.0 on a 7-point scale, p = 0.014). While satisfaction increased for both groups after the first treatment, it remained significantly higher for the counseling group until the end of treatment (6.9 vs. 6.2, p = 0.001).

Dr. Atwood said he was pleased to see how long the benefits of additional counseling persisted. “It has a lasting impact,” he said. “For years, we thought medical physics consultations had great potential, but now we have a better understanding of how they can positively impact a patient’s condition.”

While other members of the medical team may also be called upon to provide patients with a deeper understanding of their care, Dr. Atwood said he believed medical physicists were uniquely suited to the role because they were intimately familiar with the science behind the technology. which is used.

“People don’t realize how personalized this therapy really is. Medical physicists are working behind the scenes to make sure this personalized treatment is both safe and effective. Our research shows that there may also be a patient-facing role that will allow medical physicists to add more value to the patient experience,” he said.