Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Pract Radiat Oncol ; 8(5): 324-331, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29907507

RESUMO

PURPOSE: A survey was created by NRG to assess a medical physicists' percent full time equivalent (FTE) contribution to multi-institutional clinical trials. A 2012 American Society for Radiation Oncology report, "Safety Is No Accident," quantified medical physics staffing contributions in FTE factors for clinical departments. No quantification of FTE effort associated with clinical trials was included. METHODS: To address this lack of information, the NRG Medical Physics Subcommittee decided to obtain manpower data from the medical physics community to quantify the amount of time medical physicists spent supporting clinical trials. A survey, consisting of 16 questions, was designed to obtain information regarding physicists' time spent supporting clinical trials. The survey was distributed to medical physicists at 1996 radiation therapy institutions included on the membership rosters of the 5 National Clinical Trials Network clinical trial groups. RESULTS: Of the 451 institutions who responded, 50% (226) reported currently participating in radiation therapy trials. On average, the designated physicist at each institution spent 2.4 hours (standard deviation [SD], 5.5) per week supervising or interacting with clinical trial staff. On average, 1.2 hours (SD, 3.1), 1.8 hours (SD, 3.9), and 0.6 hours (SD, 1.1) per week were spent on trial patient simulations, treatment plan reviews, and maintaining a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine server, respectively. For all trial credentialing activities, physicists spent an average of 32 hours (SD, 57.2) yearly. Reading protocols and supporting dosimetrists, clinicians, and therapists took an average of 2.1 hours (SD, 3.4) per week. Physicists also attended clinical trial meetings, on average, 1.2 hours (SD, 1.9) per month. CONCLUSION: On average, physicist spent a nontrivial total of 9 hours per week (0.21 FTE) supporting an average of 10 active clinical trials. This time commitment indicates the complexity of radiation therapy clinical trials and should be taken into account when staffing radiation therapy institutions.


Assuntos
Física Médica , Neoplasias/radioterapia , Radioterapia (Especialidade) , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados Unidos , Recursos Humanos
2.
J Cancer Educ ; 32(4): 721-727, 2017 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27209044

RESUMO

Despite initiatives to increase the enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities into cancer clinical trials in the National Cancer Institute National Cancer Clinical Trials Network (NCCTN), participation by Latino and African American populations remain low. The primary aims of this pilot study are (1) to develop a Cultural Competency and Recruitment Training Program (CCRTP) for physician investigators and clinical research associates (CRAs), (2) to determine if the CCRTP increases cultural competency scores among physician investigators and CRAs, and (3) to determine the impact of the CCRTP on minority patient recruitment into NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials. Sixty-seven CRAs and physicians participated in an in-person or online 4-h CRRTP training. Five knowledge and attitude items showed significant improvements from pre- to post-training. A comparison between enrolling sites that did and did not participate in the CCRTP demonstrated a pre to 1-year post-incremental increase in minority accrual to clinical trials of 1.2 % among participating sites. While not statistically significant, this increase translated into an additional 300 minority patients accrued to NCCTN clinical trials in the year following the training from those sites who participated in the training.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Competência Cultural/educação , Grupos Minoritários/psicologia , Seleção de Pacientes , Radioterapia , Feminino , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , Projetos Piloto , Estados Unidos
3.
JAMA ; 299(18): 2151-63, 2008 May 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18477782

RESUMO

CONTEXT: Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone. RESULTS: Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico , Mamografia , Ultrassonografia Mamária , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Biópsia , Feminino , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Fatores de Risco , Sensibilidade e Especificidade
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...