Using Creative Methodology to Explore LGBTQ+ Love and Relationship Experiences across the lifespan:Developing Inclusive and Healthy Spaces through Positive Intergenerational Exchange

Introduction: Important lessons can be learned from the intergenerational sharing of lifetime love and relationship stories between multigenerational LGBTQ+ people, to inform education, healthcare, and policy. However, such exploratory studies have been limited. The aim of this co-creation study was to explore younger and older peoples’ LGBTQ+ love and relationship experiences using creative methodology.Methods: Three 2-hour virtual fictional writing and storytelling workshops were conducted at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in Edinburgh, Scotland. Participants included 2 middle-aged adults; 3 older adults aged 55+; and 5 youths who identified as either lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Participants’ stories were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically-analyzed to capture understandings of intergenerational knowledge exchange and LGBTQ+ love and relationships across sociocultural and environmental contexts. Diverse experiences were unpacked and shared through a self-reflexive creative writing process.Findings: Participants identified the act of storytelling and fictional writing as particularly liberating, providing a platform for voice and reflexivity. The reflexive analysis highlighted the importance of reflexivity and the careful navigation of intersectionality and power within research contexts. Our introspective analysis resulted in valuable future directions for employing creative methodologies to further explore diverse experiences within LGBTQ+ research.Conclusions: Participants reported that being able to craft their stories was a freeing experience, enabling sense-making to occur. Using creative methodology was demonstrated as an effective way to facilitate intergenerational engagement, and bring to light the complexities of LGBTQ+ love and relationships across generations in a safe environment

A comparative assessment of prostate positioning guided by three-dimensional ultrasound and cone beam CT

Background: The accuracy of the Elekta Clarity (TM) three-dimensional ultrasound system (3DUS) was assessed for prostate positioning and compared to seed-and bone-based positioning in kilo-voltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) during a definitive radiotherapy. Methods: The prostate positioning of 6 patients, with fiducial markers implanted into the prostate, was controlled by 3DUS and CBCT. In total, 78 ultrasound scans were performed trans-abdominally and compared to bone-matches and seed-matches in CBCT scans. Setup errors detected by the different modalities were compared. Systematic and random errors were analysed, and optimal setup margins were calculated. Results: The discrepancy between 3DUS and seed-match in CBCT was -0.2 +/- 2.7 mm laterally,-1.9 +/- 2.3 mm longitudinally and 0.0 +/- 3.0 mm vertically and significant only in longitudinal direction. Using seed-match as reference, systematic errors of 3DUS were 1.3 mm laterally, 0.8 mm longitudinally and 1.4 mm vertically, and random errors were 2.5 mm laterally, 2.3 mm longitudinally, and 2.7 mm vertically. No significant difference could be detected for 3DUS in comparison to bone-match in CBCT. Conclusions: 3DUS is feasible for image guidance for patients with prostate cancer and appears comparable to CBCT based image guidance in the retrospective study. While 3DUS offers some distinct advantages such as no need of invasive fiducial implantation and avoidance of extra radiation, its disadvantages include the operator dependence of the technique and dependence on sufficient bladder filling. Further study of 3DUS for image guidance in a large patient cohort is warranted

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting.

BACKGROUND Standards for reporting surgical adverse events vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture adverse events hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative adverse event reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether adverse event reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS Of 1,409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical adverse event reporting. Journals most likely to recommend adverse event reporting were: 1) by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); 2) in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); 3) by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative adverse event reporting. Journal guidelines regarding adverse event reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical adverse event reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

The maximum standardized uptake value in patients with recurrent or persistent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and PSMA-PET-guided salvage radiotherapy-a multicenter retrospective analysis

Purpose This study aims to evaluate the association of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in positron-emission tomography targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA-PET) prior to salvage radiotherapy (sRT) on biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS) in a large multicenter cohort.Methods Patients who underwent (68) Ga-PSMA11-PET prior to sRT were enrolled in four high-volume centers in this retrospective multicenter study. Only patients with PET-positive local recurrence (LR) and/or nodal recurrence (NR) within the pelvis were included. Patients were treated with intensity-modulated-sRT to the prostatic fossa and elective lymphatics in case of nodal disease. Dose escalation was delivered to PET-positive LR and NR. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered at the discretion of the treating physician. LR and NR were manually delineated and SUVmax was extracted for LR and NR. Cox-regression was performed to analyze the impact of clinical parameters and the SUVmax-derived values on BRFS.Results Two hundred thirty-five patients with a median follow-up (FU) of 24 months were included in the final cohort. Two-year and 4-year BRFS for all patients were 68% and 56%. The presence of LR was associated with favorable BRFS (p = 0.016). Presence of NR was associated with unfavorable BRFS (p = 0.007). While there was a trend for SUVmax values >= median (p = 0.071), SUVmax values >= 75% quartile in LR were significantly associated with unfavorable BRFS (p = 0.022, HR: 2.1, 95%CI 1.1-4.6). SUVmax value in NR was not significantly associated with BRFS. SUVmax in LR stayed significant in multivariate analysis (p = 0.030). Sensitivity analysis with patients for who had a FU of > 12 months (n = 197) confirmed these results.Conclusion The non-invasive biomarker SUVmax can prognosticate outcome in patients undergoing sRT and recurrence confined to the prostatic fossa in PSMA-PET. Its addition might contribute to improve risk stratification of patients with recurrent PCa and to guide personalized treatment decisions in terms of treatment intensification or de-intensification. This article is part of the Topical Collection on Oncology-Genitourinary

Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journal Recommendations and Requirements for Surgical and Anesthesiologic Adverse Events Reporting

BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality