Rajiv Samant

Dr. Rajiv Samant

Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

21Years (2006-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
14 February 2021 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Mitchell SabloffMitchell Sabloff
Mitchell Sabloff
Steven TisseverasingheSteven Tisseverasinghe
Steven Tisseverasinghe
MBMustafa Ege Babadagli
Mustafa Ege Babadagli
RSRajiv Samant
Rajiv Samant
Total body irradiation (TBI), used as part of the conditioning regimen prior to allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation, is the delivery of a relatively homogeneous dose of radiation to the entire body. TBI has a dual role, being cytotoxic and immunosuppressive. This allows it to eliminate disease and create “space” in the marrow while also impairing the immune system from rejecting the foreign donor cells being transplanted. Advantages that TBI may have over chemotherapy alone are that it may achieve greater tumour cytotoxicity and better tissue penetration than chemotherapy as its delivery is independent of vascular supply and physiologic barriers such as renal and hepatic function. Therefore, the so-called “sanctuary” sites such as the central nervous system (CNS), testes, and orbits or other sites with limited blood supply are not off-limits to radiation. Nevertheless, TBI is hampered by challenging logistics of administration, coordination between hematology and radiation oncology departments, increased rates of acute treatment-related morbidity and mortality along with late toxicity to other tissues. Newer technologies and a better understanding of the biology and physics of TBI has allowed the field to develop novel delivery systems which may help to deliver radiation more safely while maintaining its efficacy. However, continued research and collaboration are needed to determine the best approaches for the use of TBI in the future.

11 January 2021 in Journal of Cancer Education
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RSRajiv Samant
Rajiv Samant
ECElisabeth Cisa-Paré
Elisabeth Cisa-Paré
KBK. Balchin
K. Balchin
JRJ. Renaud
J. Renaud
LBL. Bunch
L. Bunch
JMJ. Meng
J. Meng
The patient-provider relationship is a key driver of patient satisfaction as it relates to overall healthcare experience. We surveyed patients undergoing radiation therapy to determine what they consider to be the most valued qualities in their interactions with the healthcare team. An ethics-approved 35-item patient satisfaction survey was developed in-house to gain insights on patients’ perception of their relationship with the healthcare team throughout their cancer journey. There were 199 completed survey, median age 68 years, 54% women and 45% men. Almost all (95%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that their physicians had been sensitive and compassionate. Over 90% felt that they received adequate explanations about their treatment, and had their questions answered. The vast majority (93%) felt included in the decision-making process. Patients reported the 5 most highly rated qualities among their healthcare providers (HCPs) as knowledge, kindness, honesty, good communication, and a cheerful attitude. Overall satisfaction was high but areas for improvement were identified including being offered future appointments for further discussion, more information about clinical trials, other treatments, and community resources. Patients noted their HCPs tended to focus on the physical and emotional needs of patients, but spiritual and cultural needs were rarely addressed. Patients receiving radiotherapy reported high rates of satisfaction across many aspects of their care. These findings also reinforce the different aspects of holistic care that can be improved, and serve as a reminder to clinicians that patients perceive their role as more than just that of a medical expert.

1 August 2020 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RSRajiv Samant
Rajiv Samant
KBK. Balchin
K. Balchin
ECE. Cisa-Paré
E. Cisa-Paré
JRJ. Renaud
J. Renaud
LBL. Bunch
L. Bunch
JMJ. Meng
J. Meng
Background: Humour has long been considered an important coping tool for patients with cancer, but published quantitative data about its significance are limited. The purpose of our study was to survey patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy regarding their opinions about the use of humour in their care. Methods: An anonymous 35-item questionnaire evaluating the patient experience, including the value of humour, was developed by an interdisciplinary team of health care providers (HCPS) working within the Radiation Medicine program. This anonymous, voluntary, paper-based survey for self-completion required approximately 10 minutes to finish and was administered during the fall of 2018 and the spring of 2019. Results: For the 199 patients who completed the survey [108 women, 89 men (2 respondents did not specify)], median age was 68 years. That group represents approximately 30%–35% of the patients on treatment during the study period. Almost all respondents (86%) indicated that, during their visits to the cancer centre, it was “somewhat important” or “very important” for health care providers (HCPS) to use appropriate humour, and 61% of respondents indicated using humour “frequently” or “always” when dealing with their individual cancers. Most respondents (79%) said that humour decreased anxiety, and 86% indicated that laughing was considered “somewhat important” or “very important.” Approximately 4% of respondents even listed “sense of humour” as being the most important quality that they looked for in their interactions with their HCPS. Conclusions: Cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy clearly view humour as being important for coping and dealing with their disease, and oncology HCPS should routinely consider incorporating the use of appropriate humour into the care that they provide.

11 November 2023 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RSRajiv Samant
Rajiv Samant
MBMustafa Ege Babadagli
Mustafa Ege Babadagli
SLSelena Laprade
Selena Laprade
GLGordon Locke
Gordon Locke
YZYuxin Zhang
Yuxin Zhang
JMJoanne Meng
Joanne Meng
Caring for cancer patients is generally considered very rewarding work, but it can also be stressful and demanding. Therefore, it is important for oncology healthcare professionals to feel satisfied with their work environment in order to provide the best care possible. An ethics-approved 61-item staff satisfaction survey was developed in-house to gain insights regarding workplace satisfaction among all staff at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the responses. A total of 478 individuals completed the online survey, with 75.1% women, 23.2% men, and 1.7% preferring not to say. This represented the vast majority (>75%) of cancer center staff. The approximate breakdown according to healthcare professional type was as follows: 21% nurses, 20% radiation therapists, 18% physicians, 13% clerical staff, and 28% other types of staff. Almost all (97.4%) generally enjoyed their work, with 60% stating “very much” and 37.4% stating “a little bit”, and 93.3% found working with cancer patients rewarding. The overall satisfaction level at work was high, with 30.1% reporting “very satisfied” and 54.2% “somewhat satisfied”. However, in terms of their work being stressful, 18.6% stated it was “very much” and 62.1% “a little bit”. Also, in terms of their workload, 61.3% stated it was “very busy” and 10% stated it was “excessively busy”. The most enjoyable aspects of work were listed as interactions with colleagues, interactions with patients, and learning new things. The least enjoyable aspects of work were excessive workload, a perceived unsupportive work environment, and technology problems. Levels of satisfaction and stress at work varied according to role at the cancer center. Most cancer center staff seem to enjoy their work and find it rewarding. However, the work environment can be challenging and stressful. Areas for improvement include managing workloads, ensuring staff feel supported, and improving the user-friendliness of technology.

28 October 2022 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MVMatthew E Volpini
Matthew E Volpini
JSJiheon Song
Jiheon Song
RSRajiv Samant
Rajiv Samant
DMDavid MacDonald
David MacDonald
VNVIMOJ JANARDANAN NAIR
VIMOJ JANARDANAN NAIR
Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare malignancy. Standard of care is upfront high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) chemotherapy, while cranial radiation is more commonly used in the salvage setting. In this retrospective study, we aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of salvage cranial radiation in PCNSL. PCNSL patients who received upfront HD-MTX chemotherapy and salvage cranial radiation after treatment failure between 1995 and 2018 were selected. Radiological response to cranial radiation was assessed as per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Criteria. Twenty one patients were selected (median age 59.9 years), with median follow-up of 19.9 months. Fourteen patients (66.7%) received a boost to the gross tumour volume (GTV). Four patients (19.0%) sustained grade ≥2 treatment-related neurotoxicity post-completion of cranial radiation. Of the 19 patients who had requisite MRI with gadolinium imaging available for Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria assessment, 47.4% achieved complete response, 47.4% achieved partial response, and 5.3% of patients exhibited stable disease. Higher dose to the whole brain (>30 Gy) was associated with higher rate of complete response (63.6%) than lower dose (≤30 Gy, 37.5%), while boost dose to the gross disease was also associated with higher rate of complete response (61.5%) compared with no boost dose (33.3%). Median overall survival was 20.0 months. PCNSL patients who relapsed following upfront chemotherapy showed a high rate of response to salvage cranial radiation, especially in those receiving greater than 30 Gy to the whole brain and boost to gross disease.

1 January 2012 in Pain Research and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NENaveen Eipe
Naveen Eipe
JPJohn Penning
John Penning
RBRya Boscariol
Rya Boscariol
RSRajiv Samant
Rajiv Samant
ECE Choan
E Choan