Assessment of Patient Attribution to Care From Medical Oncologists, Surgeons, or Radiation Oncologists After Newly Diagnosed Cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gondi S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8111479 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeOur purpose was to assess the terminology used to describe the different oncologic subspecialties at academic institutions in the United States and determine whether the use of the term "oncologist" to describe a medical oncologist (MO) may affect the multidisciplinary care of patients with cancer.Methods and materialsAn electronic survey was sent to chairs and program directors at all 94 academic radiation oncology departments in the United States. Questions assessed the terminology used to describe the oncologic subspecialties in their hospital's electronic medical record system, their views on how that terminology may affect referral patterns, and the perception of radiation oncologists' (ROs) role in patient care.ResultsResponses were received from 40 institutions (response rate, 42.6%). Fifteen percent of hospital electronic medical record systems used the term "oncology" instead of "medical oncology" (51%) or "hematology/oncology" (28%). Describing MOs simply as "oncologists" was thought to more likely affect patient views of MOs as the primary decision maker in their cancer care (mean Likert-type rating, 3.43) than it would affect the probability of up-front multidisciplinary referrals (mean Likert-type rating, 2.69). Patient perceptions of ROs as equal partners in care were thought to be less associated with the terminology used to describe MOs (mean Likert-type rating, 3.15) than the behavior of ROs in patient care (mean Likert-type rating, 4.65; P < .001), the attitude of MOs toward ROs (mean Likert-type rating, 4.59; P < .001), and the involvement of ROs in the initial new patient visits rather than a downstream referral (mean Likert-type rating, 3.95; P < .001).ConclusionsThe terminology used to describe MOs was thought to affect patient and provider perceptions of RO, but less so than other patient-provider interaction factors.
| S-EPMC8042774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo examine characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving radiation oncologists closed during a 10-year period.Methods and materialsMalpractice claims filed against radiation oncologists from 2003 to 2012 collected by a nationwide liability insurance trade association were analyzed. Outcomes included the nature of claims and indemnity payments, including associated presenting diagnoses, procedures, alleged medical errors, and injury severity. We compared the likelihood of a claim resulting in payment in relation to injury severity categories (death as referent) using binomial logistic regression.ResultsThere were 362 closed claims involving radiation oncology, 102 (28%) of which were paid, resulting in $38 million in indemnity payments. The most common alleged errors included "improper performance" (38% of closed claims, 18% were paid; 29% [$11 million] of total indemnity), "errors in diagnosis" (25% of closed claims, 46% were paid; 44% [$17 million] of total indemnity), and "no medical misadventure" (14% of closed claims, 8% were paid; less than 1% [$148,000] of total indemnity). Another physician was named in 32% of claims, and consent issues/breach of contract were cited in 18%. Claims for injury resulting in death represented 39% of closed claims and 25% of total indemnity. "Improper performance" was the primary alleged error associated with injury resulting in death. Compared with claims involving death, major temporary injury (odds ratio [OR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-5.85, P=.009), significant permanent injury (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.48-6.46, P=.003), and major permanent injury (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.89-16.15, P=.002) had a higher likelihood of a claim resulting in indemnity payment.ConclusionsImproper performance was the most common alleged malpractice error. Claims involving significant or major injury were more likely to be paid than those involving death. Insights into the nature of liability claims against radiation oncologists may help direct efforts to improve quality of care and minimize the risk of being sued.
| S-EPMC5463541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStage III N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a very heterogeneous disease associated with a poor prognosis. A number of therapeutic options are available for patients with Stage III N2 NSCLC, including surgery [with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx)/neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT)] or CRT potentially followed by adjuvant immunotherapy. We have no clear evidence demonstrating a significant survival benefit for either of these approaches, the selection between treatments is not always straightforward and can come down to physician and patient preference. The very heterogeneous definition of resectability of N2 disease makes the decision-making process even more complex.MethodsWe evaluated the treatment strategies for preoperatively diagnosed stage III cN2 NSCLC among Swiss thoracic surgeons and radiation oncologists. Treatment strategies were converted into decision trees and analysed for consensus and discrepancies. We analysed factors relevant to decision-making within these recommendations.ResultsFor resectable "non-bulky" mediastinal lymph node involvement, there was a trend towards surgery. Numerous participants recommend a surgical approach outside existing guidelines as long as the disease was resectable, even in multilevel N2. With increasing extent of mediastinal nodal disease, multimodal treatment based on radiotherapy was more common.ConclusionsBoth, surgery- or radiotherapy-based treatment regimens are feasible options in the management of Stage III N2 NSCLC. The different opinions reflected in the results of this manuscript reinforce the importance of a multidisciplinary setting and the importance of shared decision-making with the patient.
| S-EPMC8107728 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAgreement between planners and treating radiation oncologists (ROs) on plan quality criteria is essential for consistent planning. Differences between ROs and planning medical physicists (MPs) in perceived quality of head and neck cancer plans were assessed.Materials and methodsFive ROs and four MPs scored 65 plans for in total 15 patients. For each patient, the clinical (CLIN) plan and two or four alternative plans, generated with automated multi-criteria optimization (MCO), were included. There was always one MCO plan aiming at maximally adhering to clinical plan requirements, while the other MCO plans had a lower aimed quality. Scores were given as follows: 1-7 and 1-2, not acceptable; 3-5, acceptable if further planning would not resolve perceived weaknesses; and 6-7, straightway acceptable. One MP and one RO repeated plan scoring for intra-observer variation assessment.ResultsFor the 36 unique observer pairs, the median percentage of plans for which the two observers agreed on a plan score (100% = 65 plans) was 27.7% [6.2, 40.0]. In the repeat scoring, agreements between first and second scoring were 52.3% and 40.0%, respectively. With a binary division between unacceptable (scores 1 and 2) and acceptable (3-7) plans, the median inter-observer agreement percentage was 78.5% [63.1, 86.2], while intra-observer agreements were 96.9% and 86.2%. There were no differences in observed agreements between RO-RO, MP-MP, and RO-MP pairs. Agreements for the highest-quality, automatically generated MCO plans were higher than for the CLIN plans.ConclusionsInter-observer differences in plan quality scores were substantial and could result in inconsistencies in generated treatment plans. Agreements among ROs were not better than between ROs and MPs, despite large differences in training and clinical role. High-quality automatically generated plans showed the best score agreements.
| S-EPMC8545894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPulsed radiation therapy (PRT) has shown effective tumor control and superior normal-tissue sparing ability compared with standard radiotherapy (SRT) in preclinical models and retrospective clinical series. This is the first prospective trial to investigate PRT in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM).MethodsThis is a single-arm, prospective study. Patients with newly diagnosed GBM underwent surgery, followed by 60 Gy of PRT with concurrent temozolomide (TMZ). Each day, a 2-Gy fraction was divided into ten 0.2-Gy pulses, separated by 3-minute intervals. Patients received maintenance TMZ. Neurocognitive function (NCF) and quality of life (QoL) were monitored for 2 years using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test‒Revised and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 QoL questionnaire. Change in NCF was evaluated based on a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold of 0.5 standard deviation.ResultsTwenty patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 21 months. Median age was 60 years. Forty percent underwent subtotal resection, and 60% underwent gross total resection. One patient had an isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutated tumor. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 10.7 and 20.9 months, respectively. In a post-hoc comparison, median OS for the prospective cohort was longer, compared with a matched cohort receiving SRT (20.9 vs 14 mo, P = 0.042). There was no decline in QoL, and changes in NCF scores did not meet the threshold of an MCID.ConclusionsTreatment of newly diagnosed GBM with PRT is feasible and produces promising effectiveness while maintaining neurocognitive function and QoL. Validation of our results in a larger prospective trial warrants consideration.
| S-EPMC7992887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWhile MRI has become the imaging modality of choice in the diagnosis of sellar tumors, no systematic attempt has yet been made to align radiological reporting of findings with the information needed by the various medical disciplines dealing with these patients. Therefore, we aimed to determine the prevailing preferences in this regard through a nationwide expert survey.MethodsFirst, an interdisciplinary literature-based catalog of potential reporting elements for sellar tumor MRI examinations was created. Subsequently, a web-based survey regarding the clinical relevance of these items was conducted among board certified members of the German Society of Neurosurgery, German Society of Radiation Oncology, and the Pituitary Working Group of the German Society of Endocrinology.ResultsA total of 95 experts (40 neurosurgeons, 28 radiation oncologists, and 27 endocrinologists) completed the survey. The description of the exact tumor location, size, and involvement of the anatomic structures adjacent to the sella turcica (optic chiasm, cavernous sinus, and skull base), occlusive hydrocephalus, relationship to the pituitary gland and infundibulum, and certain structural characteristics of the mass (cyst formation, hemorrhage, and necrosis) was rated most important (> 75% agreement). In contrast, the characterization of anatomic features of the nasal cavity and sphenoid sinus as well as the findings of advanced MRI techniques (e.g., perfusion and diffusion imaging) was considered relevant by less than 50% of respondents.ConclusionTo optimally address the information needs of the interdisciplinary treatment team, MRI reports of sellar masses should primarily focus on the accurate description of tumor location, size, internal structure, and involvement of adjacent anatomic compartments.
| S-EPMC10567906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although there have been many definitions for high-risk (HR) myeloma, most recent consensus for classifying risk in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NMM) comes from the International Myeloma Working Group. This recently published revised International Staging System includes del(17p) or t(4;14) by fluorescence in situ hybridization, ?-2 microglobulin, albumin, and lactate dehydrogenase. These elements should be captured in all NMM patients. The optimal treatments for HR myeloma have not been fully worked out; therefore, these patients should be considered for clinical trials. Outside of the trial setting for those patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), a regimen with bortezomib, but not thalidomide, should be considered, with a duration of therapy of at least 1 year. The regimen with the best results to date is bortezomib, melphalan, and predisone. A nonthalidomide maintenance could also be considered. In patients who are eligible for ASCT, an induction regimen with bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug should be administered for 3 to 6 months followed by 2 ASCTs. Finally, a consolidation/maintenance regimen containing at least 1 year of bortezomib should be administered followed by maintenance thereafter. For patient convenience, an oral agent that is not thalidomide could be prescribed as maintenance. Finally, in patients with HR myeloma, allogeneic SCT may be associated with reasonable outcomes, but this too will require further research.
| S-EPMC6142458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate first-year health care charges for youth with newly diagnosed epilepsy seen within an interdisciplinary pediatric epilepsy team and examine demographic, clinical, and psychosocial predictors of annual charges.MethodsRetrospective chart review was conducted to extract medical, hospital, and physician billing data from the year following an epilepsy diagnosis for 258 patients (aged 2-18 years) seen in a New Onset Seizure Clinic between July 2011 and December 2012. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate per-patient total first-year charges and health care utilization patterns (e.g., hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient visits). Univariate analyses examined differences in health care charges between demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors. Predictors of health care charges were examined using hierarchical multiple regression analysis.ResultsThe estimated per-patient total first-year health care charge was $20,084 (95% confidence interval [CI] $16,491-$23,677). Charges were higher for patients who reported having seizures since diagnosis ($25,509; 95% CI $20,162-$30,856) and were associated with more antiepileptic drug side effects (r = 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-0.32). Controlling for demographic and clinical factors, poorer baseline health-related quality of life was associated with higher per-patient health care charges (B = -445.40; 95% CI -865 to -25).ConclusionsThe economic impact of pediatric epilepsy in the year following diagnosis is substantial. Cost reduction efforts would be optimized by improving seizure control and targeting health-related quality of life, an outcome amenable to behavioral intervention.
| S-EPMC4540245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MRI is increasingly used in radiation oncology to facilitate tumor and organ-at-risk delineation and image guidance. In this review, we address issues of MRI that are relevant for radiation oncologists when interpreting MR images offered for radiotherapy. Whether MRI is used in combination with CT or in an MRI-only workflow, it is generally necessary to ensure that MR images are acquired in treatment position, using the positioning and fixation devices that are commonly applied in radiotherapy. For target delineation, often a series of separate image sets are used with distinct image contrasts, acquired within a single exam. MR images can suffer from image distortions. While this can be avoided with dedicated scan protocols, in a diagnostic setting geometrical fidelity is less relevant and is therefore less accounted for. Since geometrical fidelity is of utmost importance in radiation oncology, it requires dedicated scan protocols. The strong magnetic field of an MRI scanner and the use of radiofrequency radiation can cause safety hazards if not properly addressed. Safety screening is crucial for every patient and every operator prior to entering the MRI room.
| S-EPMC6630156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeRadiation oncology is often overlooked in US medical school curricula, with few opportunities for most students to learn about the specialty or the value of radiation therapy in cancer care. Tumor boards represent a potential avenue not only to increase students' exposure to radiation oncologists but also to provide a fundamental understanding of the multidisciplinary nature of cancer care and effective collaboration in clinical practice.Methods and materialsIn this study, we evaluated a novel radiation oncologist-driven tumor board shadowing experience at 3 medical schools in the United States and Canada. A total of 323 first- and second-year medical students participated, of whom 77.4% completed a follow-up survey assessing the effectiveness of the program as a learning tool.ResultsCompared with traditional clinical shadowing, students were more likely to believe that tumor board shadowing provided a similar or better experience in terms of educational content (85%), exposure to a new field (96%), and overall experience (89%). Forty-eight percent of students perceived a greater amount of multidisciplinary collaboration in oncologic care than they thought existed prior to attending. Forty-eight percent of students also felt more competent interacting with oncologists after participating, whereas 21% felt more competent interacting with patients with cancer. Students' perception of increased competence was correlated with the amount of time their assigned physician mentor spent answering their questions after the tumor board (P < .01). Second-year medical students also had a more favorable overall experience than first-year medical students did (P = .04).ConclusionsMultidisciplinary tumor boards can be used effectively as a unique immersive learning opportunity that can be feasibly implemented to improve knowledge of clinical oncology and multidisciplinary care in medical schools and expose students to physicians in smaller fields such as radiation oncology.
| S-EPMC6605775 | biostudies-literature