Depression and Quality of Life in Siblings of Children With Cancer After Group Intervention Participation: A Randomized Control Trial

Objective

The objective of this study was to (1) assess the effects of a group intervention called Siblings Coping Together on siblings' psychosocial adjustment compared with controls; (2) explore the potential moderating effect of siblings' gender; and (3) investigate whether the intervention was more effective for siblings with more depressive symptoms at baseline.

Methods

This was a repeated measure, parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two groups. Seventy-five healthy siblings (7-16 years old, 41 males) participated. Both groups had 8 weekly 2-hr sessions. Intervention sessions had psychoeducational, social, and therapeutic problem-solving goals taught through games and crafts (n = 41); controls (n = 34) had games and crafts only. Self-reported symptoms of depression (Children's Depression Inventory, CDI) and self- and proxy-reported quality of life (QOL) (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, PedsQL) were obtained at baseline, postintervention, and 3 months later. Multivariable analyses with a mixed effects model were performed.

Results

No significant main group effect or group × time interactions were found for any of the scales assessed. Significant improvement over time was found for total CDI (p < .01) and proxy-reported PedsQL total (p < .001) in both groups, which may have been attributable to the passage of time.

Conclusions

No sufficient evidence was obtained for the efficacy of the intervention in the current study. Future research may examine conducting a larger RCT comparing sibling support group to no treatment control group.

Effectiveness of buccal pouch grafting in minimizing loss of alveolar dimension: A canine investigation

BACKGROUND

The study's purpose was to study buccal pouch grafting (BPG) with xenograft, freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA), or FDBA + decalcified FDBA (DFDBA) on alveolar ridge width preservation and overlying soft tissue thickness at dog premolar extraction sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this animal study, 4 dogs had their mandibular first premolar (P1) and distal roots of P2, P3, and P4 extracted (after endodontic treatment of the mesial roots) bilaterally. A small buccal pouch was created at each extraction socket and four treatments tested: nothing, xenograft, FDBA, or FDBA + DFDBA. Casts made pretreatment and at 1 and 3 months after treatment allowed measurements of buccolingual alveolar ridge width (BLRW), while overlying buccal soft tissue thicknesses were measured clinically. Data were assessed using analysis of variance to compare changes in soft tissue thickness and BLRW between times and treatments. Tukey-Kramer adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied for doing post hoc, pairwise comparisons. Results were considered significant if P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Control sites showed significant (P = 0.0067) decreases in soft tissue thickness over time while there was a trend for increased soft tissue thickness at all grafted sites. There were significant losses in BLRW over time for control (P = 0.0032) and FDBA groups (P = 0.015) with a trend for loss with FDBA + DFDBA. Pairwise comparison using Tukey-Kramer adjustment revealed significant increases in BLRW from T1 to T3 for the xenograft group relative to all the others.

CONCLUSION

BPG using xenograft is effective in maintaining hard and soft tissue stability following tooth extraction.

To frame or not to frame? Cone-beam CT-based analysis of head immobilization devices specific to linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy

Purpose

Noninvasive frameless systems are increasingly being utilized for head immobilization in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Knowing the head positioning reproducibility of frameless systems and their respective ability to limit intrafractional head motion is important in order to safely perform SRS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the intrafractional head motion of an invasive frame and a series of frameless systems for single fraction SRS and fractionated/hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT/HF‐SRT).

Methods

The noninvasive PinPoint system was used on 15 HF‐SRT and 21 SRS patients. Intrafractional motion for these patients was compared to 15 SRS patients immobilized with Cosman‐Roberts‐Wells (CRW) frame, and a FSRT population that respectively included 23, 32, and 15 patients immobilized using Gill‐Thomas‐Cosman (GTC) frame, Uniframe, and Orfit. All HF‐SRT and FSRT patients were treated using intensity‐modulated radiation therapy on a linear accelerator equipped with cone‐beam CT (CBCT) and a robotic couch. SRS patients were treated using gantry‐mounted stereotactic cones. The CBCT image‐guidance protocol included initial setup, pretreatment and post‐treatment verification images. The residual error determined from the post‐treatment CBCT was used as a surrogate for intrafractional head motion during treatment.

Results

The mean intrafractional motion over all fractions with PinPoint was 0.62 ± 0.33 mm and 0.45 ± 0.33 mm, respectively, for the HF‐SRT and SRS cohort of patients (P‐value = 0.266). For CRW, GTC, Orfit, and Uniframe, the mean intrafractional motions were 0.30 ± 0.21 mm, 0.54 ± 0.76 mm, 0.73 ± 0.49 mm, and 0.76 ± 0.51 mm, respectively. For CRW, PinPoint, GTC, Orfit, and Uniframe, intrafractional motion exceeded 1.5 mm in 0%, 0%, 5%, 6%, and 8% of all fractions treated, respectively.

Conclusions

The noninvasive PinPoint system and the invasive CRW frame stringently limit cranial intrafractional motion, while the latter provides superior immobilization. Based on the results of this study, our clinical practice for malignant tumors has evolved to apply an invasive CRW frame only for metastases in eloquent locations to minimize normal tissue exposure.

The special case of the 2 × 2 table: asymptotic unconditional McNemar test can be used to estimate sample size even for analysis based on GEE

OBJECTIVES

Aligning the method used to estimate sample size with the planned analytic method ensures the sample size needed to achieve the planned power. When using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to analyze a paired binary primary outcome with no covariates, many use an exact McNemar test to calculate sample size. We reviewed the approaches to sample size estimation for paired binary data and compared the sample size estimates on the same numerical examples.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used the hypothesized sample proportions for the 2 × 2 table to calculate the correlation between the marginal proportions to estimate sample size based on GEE. We solved the inside proportions based on the correlation and the marginal proportions to estimate sample size based on exact McNemar, asymptotic unconditional McNemar, and asymptotic conditional McNemar.

RESULTS

The asymptotic unconditional McNemar test is a good approximation of GEE method by Pan. The exact McNemar is too conservative and yields unnecessarily large sample size estimates than all other methods.

CONCLUSION

In the special case of a 2 × 2 table, even when a GEE approach to binary logistic regression is the planned analytic method, the asymptotic unconditional McNemar test can be used to estimate sample size. We do not recommend using an exact McNemar test.