Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 102
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 116(17): 8214-8219, 2019 04 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30962375

RESUMEN

Prior research has found that systems thinking, the tendency to perceive phenomena as interconnected and dynamic, is associated with a general proenvironmental orientation. However, less is known about its relationship with public understanding of climate change and/or whether this relationship varies across people with different political views. Because climate change is a highly politicized issue, it is also important to understand the extent to which systems thinking can foster acceptance of climate science across political lines. Using an online sample of US adults (n = 1,058), we tested the degree to which systems thinking predicts global warming beliefs and attitudes (e.g., believing that global warming is happening, that it is human-caused, etc.), independent of an ecological worldview (i.e., the New Ecological Paradigm). We found that although systems thinking is positively related to global warming beliefs and attitudes, the relationships are almost fully explained by an ecological worldview. Indirect effects of systems thinking are consistently strong across political ideologies and party affiliations, although slightly stronger for conservatives and Republicans than for liberals and Democrats, respectively. We did not find evidence of the converse: Systems thinking does not seem to mediate the relationship between an ecological worldview and global warming beliefs and attitudes. Together, these findings suggest that systems thinking may support the adoption of global warming beliefs and attitudes indirectly by helping to develop an ecological ethic that people should take care of and not abuse the environment.


Asunto(s)
Actitud , Comunicación , Calentamiento Global , Análisis de Sistemas , Adulto , Humanos
2.
J Appl Clin Med Phys ; 23 Suppl 1: e13799, 2022 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36382354

RESUMEN

This section focuses on the professional workforce comprised of the primary medical specialties that utilize ionizing radiation in their practices. Those discussed include the specialties of radiology and radiation oncology, as well as the subspecialties of radiology, namely diagnostic radiology, interventional radiology, nuclear radiology, and nuclear medicine. These professionals provide essential health care services, for example, the interpretation of imaging studies, the provision of interventional procedures, radionuclide therapeutic treatments, and radiation therapy. In addition, they may be called on to function as part of a radiologic emergency response team to care for potentially exposed persons following radiation events, for example, detonation of a nuclear weapon, nuclear power plant accidents, and transportation incidents. For these reasons, maintenance of an adequate workforce in each of these professions is essential to meeting the nation's future needs. Currently, there is a shortage for all physicians in the medical radiology workforce.


Asunto(s)
Medicina , Medicina Nuclear , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Diagnóstico por Imagen , Radiología Intervencionista , Recursos Humanos
3.
N Engl J Med ; 376(5): 417-428, 2017 02 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28146658

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Salvage radiation therapy is often necessary in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy and have evidence of prostate-cancer recurrence signaled by a persistently or recurrently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Whether antiandrogen therapy with radiation therapy will further improve cancer control and prolong overall survival is unknown. METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 1998 through 2003, we assigned 760 eligible patients who had undergone prostatectomy with a lymphadenectomy and had disease, as assessed on pathological testing, with a tumor stage of T2 (confined to the prostate but with a positive surgical margin) or T3 (with histologic extension beyond the prostatic capsule), no nodal involvement, and a detectable PSA level of 0.2 to 4.0 ng per milliliter to undergo radiation therapy and receive either antiandrogen therapy (24 months of bicalutamide at a dose of 150 mg daily) or daily placebo tablets during and after radiation therapy. The primary end point was the rate of overall survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up among the surviving patients was 13 years. The actuarial rate of overall survival at 12 years was 76.3% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 71.3% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.99; P=0.04). The 12-year incidence of death from prostate cancer, as assessed by means of central review, was 5.8% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 13.4% in the placebo group (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of metastatic prostate cancer at 12 years was 14.5% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 23.0% in the placebo group (P=0.005). The incidence of late adverse events associated with radiation therapy was similar in the two groups. Gynecomastia was recorded in 69.7% of the patients in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 10.9% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 24 months of antiandrogen therapy with daily bicalutamide to salvage radiation therapy resulted in significantly higher rates of long-term overall survival and lower incidences of metastatic prostate cancer and death from prostate cancer than radiation therapy plus placebo. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; RTOG 9601 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002874 .).


Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Anilidas/uso terapéutico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/tratamiento farmacológico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/radioterapia , Nitrilos/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Compuestos de Tosilo/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Antagonistas de Andrógenos/efectos adversos , Anilidas/efectos adversos , Terapia Combinada , Método Doble Ciego , Estudios de Seguimiento , Ginecomastia/inducido químicamente , Humanos , Incidencia , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Metástasis de la Neoplasia , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/mortalidad , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Nitrilos/efectos adversos , Prostatectomía , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Radioterapia/efectos adversos , Tasa de Supervivencia , Compuestos de Tosilo/efectos adversos
4.
Cancer ; 124(12): 2653-2660, 2018 06 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29669165

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care has become an increasingly critical component of oncologic care as well as a quality practice and reimbursement metric. To the authors' knowledge, the current climate of survivorship medicine in radiation oncology has not been investigated fully. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved, Internet-based survey examining practices and preparedness in survivorship care was distributed to radiation oncology practices participating in the American College of Radiology Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation program between November 2016 and January 2017. A total of 78 surveys were completed. Among these, 2 were nonphysicians, resulting in 76 evaluable responses. RESULTS: Radiation oncologists (ROs) frequently reported that they are the primary provider in the evaluation of late toxicities and the recurrence of primary cancer. Although approximately 68% of ROs frequently discuss plans for future care with survivors, few provide a written survivorship care plan to their patients (18%) or the patients' primary care providers (24%). Patient prognosis, disease site, and reimbursement factors often influence the provision of survivorship care. Although ROs report that several platforms offer training in survivorship medicine, the quality of these resources is variable and extensive instruction is rare. Fewer than one-half of ROs believe they are expertly trained in survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: ROs play an active role within the multidisciplinary team in the cancer-related follow-up care of survivors. Investigation of barriers to the provision of survivorship care and optimization of service delivery should be pursued further. The development of high-quality, easily accessible educational programming is needed so that ROs can participate more effectively in the care of cancer survivors. Cancer 2018;124:2653-60. © 2018 American Cancer Society.


Asunto(s)
Supervivientes de Cáncer/educación , Neoplasias/radioterapia , Planificación de Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Oncología por Radiación/organización & administración , Supervivencia , Adulto , Cuidados Posteriores/organización & administración , Cuidados Posteriores/tendencias , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias/mortalidad , Planificación de Atención al Paciente/tendencias , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/organización & administración , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/tendencias , Rol Profesional , Oncólogos de Radiación/organización & administración , Oncólogos de Radiación/estadística & datos numéricos , Oncología por Radiación/métodos , Oncología por Radiación/tendencias , Encuestas y Cuestionarios/estadística & datos numéricos
5.
Ecology ; 98(11): 2980, 2017 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28884803

RESUMEN

To systematically assess views on contributions and future activities for long-term research in ecology and evolution (LTREE), we conducted and here provide data responses and associated metadata for a survey of ecological and evolutionary scientists. The survey objectives were to: (1) Identify and prioritize research questions that are important to address through long-term, ecological field experiments; and (2) understand the role that these experiments might play in generating and applying ecological and evolutionary knowledge. The survey was developed adhering to the standards of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. It was administered online using Qualtrics Survey Software. Survey creation was a multi-step process, with questions and format developed and then revised with, for example, input from an external advisory committee comprising senior and junior ecological and evolutionary researchers. The final questionnaire was released to ~100 colleagues to ensure functionality and then fielded 2 d later (January 7th , 2015). Two professional societies distributed it to their membership, including the Ecological Society of America, and it was posted to three list serves. The questionnaire was available through February 8th 2015 and completed by 1,179 respondents. The distribution approach targeted practicing ecologists and evolutionary biologists in the U.S. Quantitative (both ordinal and categorical) closed-ended questions used a predefined set of response categories, facilitating direct comparison across all respondents. Qualitative, open-ended questions, provided respondents the opportunity to develop their own answers. We employed quantitative questions to score views on the extent to which long-term experimental research has contributed to understanding in ecology and evolutionary biology; its role compared to other approaches (e.g., short-term experiments); justifications for and caveats to long-term experiments; and the relative importance of incentives for conducting long-term research. Qualitative questions were used to assess community views on the most important topics and questions for long-term research to address, and primary incentives and challenges to realizing this work. Finally, demographic data were collected to determine if views were conditional on such things as years of experience and field of expertise. The final questionnaire and all responses are provided for unrestricted use.


Asunto(s)
Evolución Biológica , Ecología , Proyectos de Investigación , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
8.
JAMA ; 311(13): 1300-7, 2014 Apr 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24691606

RESUMEN

IMPORTANCE: Tadalafil is used to treat erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, but its role as a preventive agent is undefined. OBJECTIVES: To determine primarily whether tadalafil preserved erectile function in men treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and secondarily to determine whether participant- or partner-reported overall sexual function and sexual and marital satisfaction were affected. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Stratified, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study with 1:1 randomization at 76 community-based and tertiary medical sites in the United States and Canada. Two hundred forty-two participants with intact erectile function scheduled to receive radiotherapy for prostate cancer were recruited between November 2009 and February 2012 with follow-up through March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred twenty-one participants were assigned 5 mg of tadalafil daily and 121 were assigned placebo for 24 weeks starting with external radiotherapy (63%) or brachytherapy (37%). Participant-reported International Index of Erectile Function response before radiotherapy and at weeks 2 and 4, between weeks 20 and 24, between weeks 28 and 30, and 1 year thereafter. Participants and partners could respond also to the Sexual Adjustment Questionnaire and to the Locke Marital Adjustment Test before radiotherapy, between weeks 20 and 24 and weeks 28 and 30, and at 1 year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was off-drug spontaneous erectile function 28 to 30 weeks after radiotherapy started. Secondary end points were spontaneous erection at 1 year; overall sexual function and satisfaction; marital adjustment; and partner-reported satisfaction and marital adjustment at 28 to 30 weeks and 1 year, predictors of tadalafil response; and adverse events. RESULTS: Among 221 evaluable participants, 80 (79%; 95% CI, 70%-88%) assigned to receive tadalafil retained erectile function between weeks 28 and 30 compared with 61 (74%; 95% CI, 63%-85%) assigned to receive placebo (P = .49); an absolute difference of 5% (95% CI, -9% to 19%). A significant difference was also not observed at 1 year (72%; 95% CI, 60%-84% vs 71%; 95% CI, 59%-84%; P = .93). Tadalafil was not associated with significantly improved overall sexual function or satisfaction; a significant difference was not observed in any domain subscale. Partners of men assigned tadalafil noted no significant effect on sexual satisfaction, and marital adjustment was not significantly improved in participants or partners. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer, daily use of tadalafil compared with placebo did not result in improved erectile function. These findings do not support daily use of tadalafil to prevent erectile dysfunction in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00931528.


Asunto(s)
Carbolinas/uso terapéutico , Disfunción Eréctil/prevención & control , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Traumatismos por Radiación/prevención & control , Vasodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Adaptación Psicológica , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Braquiterapia , Método Doble Ciego , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Humanos , Masculino , Matrimonio , Persona de Mediana Edad , Satisfacción del Paciente , Conducta Sexual , Tadalafilo , Resultado del Tratamiento
9.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 21(7): 1141-1144, 2024 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38302043

RESUMEN

Since 2017, the specialty of radiation oncology has experienced its fifth consecutive year of decline in residency applicants, resulting in a high number of unmatched positions. The cause of this precipitous decline is multifactorial. Factors cited include concerns about future job opportunities, the decreased pass rate in the ABR radiation biology and physics boards examinations in 2018, and the continued lack of formal exposure to radiation oncology during medical school training. We summarize the issues facing the field of radiation oncology and discuss how we could learn from similar experiences in diagnostic radiology and other specialties to address these concerns. We propose potential solutions to ensure an adequate and diverse number of residency applicants to serve the future workforce needs in radiation oncology.


Asunto(s)
Internado y Residencia , Oncología por Radiación , Oncología por Radiación/educación , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Selección de Profesión , Recursos Humanos , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina , Fuerza Laboral en Salud
10.
PLoS One ; 19(3): e0300048, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38507396

RESUMEN

Beliefs and attitudes form the core of public opinion about climate change. Network analysis can reveal the structural configuration of these beliefs and attitudes. In this research, we utilize a belief system framework to identify key psychological elements, track change in the density of these belief systems over time and across political groups, and analyze the structural heterogeneity of belief systems within and between political groups in the United States. Drawing on fifteen waves of nationally representative survey data from 2010 to 2021 (N = 16,742), our findings indicate that worry about climate change is the most central psychological element. Interestingly, we find that among politically unaffiliated individuals, the connections between psychological elements have strengthened over time, implying an increase in the consistency of belief systems within this group. Despite the political polarization in beliefs about climate change between Republicans and Democrats, our findings reveal that the ways these two groups organize and structure climate change beliefs systems are not markedly different compared to those of other groups. These findings provide theoretical and practical insights for climate change experts and communicators.


Asunto(s)
Actitud , Cambio Climático , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Opinión Pública , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Refracción Ocular , Política
11.
Eur Urol Focus ; 2024 Feb 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38307806

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been associated with coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction (MI) in prostate cancer patients, but controversy persists regarding its effects on cardiovascular mortality (CVM). OBJECTIVE: We assessed the long-term relationship between ADT and CVM in a prostate cancer randomized trial (NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 1992 to 1995, 1554 men with locally advanced prostate cancer (T2c-T4, prostate-specific antigen <150 ng/ml) received radiotherapy with 4 mo (short-term [STADT]) versus 28 mo (longer-term [LTADT]) of ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Using the Fine-Gray and Cox regression models, the relationship between ADT and mortality was evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median follow-up of 19.6 yr, LTADT was associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus STADT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; p = 0.03) and prostate cancer survival (subdistribution HR [sHR] 0.70, p = 0.003). Comparing LTADT with STADT, prostate cancer mortality improved by 6.0% (15.6% [95% confidence interval 13.0-18.3%] vs 21.6% [18.6-24.7%]) at 15 yr, while CVM increased by 2.2% (14.9% [12.4-17.6%] vs 12.7% [10.4-15.3%]). In multivariable analyses, LTADT was not associated with increased CVM versus STADT (sHR 1.22 [0.93-1.59]; p = 0.15). An association between LTADT and MI death was detected (sHR 1.58 [1.00-2.50]; p = 0.05), particularly in patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD; sHR 2.54 [1.16-5.58]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: With 19.6 yr of follow-up, LTADT was not significantly associated with increased CVM in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients may have increased MI mortality with LTADT, particularly those with baseline CVD. Overall, there remained a prostate cancer mortality benefit and no OS detriment with LTADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a long-term analysis of a large randomized prostate cancer trial, radiation with 28 mo of hormone therapy did not increase the risk of cardiovascular death significantly versus 4 mo of hormone therapy. Future studies are needed for patients with pre-existing heart disease, who may have an increased risk of myocardial infarction death with longer hormone use.

12.
Eur Urol ; 2024 Jun 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38897867

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

13.
Eur Urol Oncol ; 2024 Jan 31.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38302323

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification is critical to guide management decisions in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previously, we had developed and validated a multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) model generated from digital histopathology and clinical features. Here, we externally validate this model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the MMAI model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our validation cohort included 318 localized high-risk PCa patients from NRG/RTOG 9902 with available histopathology (337 [85%] of the 397 patients enrolled into the trial had available slides, of which 19 [5.6%] failed due to poor image quality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Two previously locked prognostic MMAI models were validated for their intended endpoint: distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Individual clinical factors and the number of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features served as comparators. Subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was reported per standard deviation increase of the score with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using Fine-Gray or Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The DM and PCSM MMAI algorithms were significantly and independently associated with the risk of DM (sHR [95% CI] = 2.33 [1.60-3.38], p < 0.001) and PCSM, respectively (sHR [95% CI] = 3.54 [2.38-5.28], p < 0.001) when compared against other prognostic clinical factors and NCCN high-risk features. The lower 75% of patients by DM MMAI had estimated 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 4% and 7%, and the highest quartile had average 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 19% and 32%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for the PCSM MMAI algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: We externally validated the prognostic ability of MMAI models previously developed among men with localized high-risk disease. MMAI prognostic models further risk stratify beyond the clinical and pathological variables for DM and PCSM in a population of men already at a high risk for disease progression. This study provides evidence for consistent validation of our deep learning MMAI models to improve prognostication and enable more informed decision-making for patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper presents a novel approach using images from pathology slides along with clinical variables to validate artificial intelligence (computer-generated) prognostic models. When implemented, clinicians can offer a more personalized and tailored prognostic discussion for men with localized prostate cancer.

14.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis ; 26(3): 625-627, 2023 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36966268

RESUMEN

It is unclear whether cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials have improved outcomes compared with non-study patients. We compared prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in patients in a real-world setting (SEER-Medicare database) versus on a trial (NRG/RTOG 0521). The 7-year freedom from PCSM was superior in trial patients (92.4% vs. 88.1%, sHR = 1.77 [95% CI 1.05-2.97], P = 0.03). Black trial patients had significantly superior freedom from PCSM than Black real-world patients (sHR 6.52, 95% CI 1.43-29.72, P = 0.02), which was not seen among non-Black patients. Trial patients may have improved outcomes, and racial disparities are accentuated in the real world.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata , Anciano , Masculino , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Medicare , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Próstata , Programa de VERF
15.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 20(5): 487-493, 2023 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36925094

RESUMEN

Burnout, defined by the presence of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and decreased sense of personal accomplishment, impacts a significant portion of radiation oncologists. This has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is notably worse for women, and has been identified as an international concern. Key contributors to burnout within radiation oncology include inadequate clinical and administrative support, imbalanced personal and professional lives including time with family and for self-care, decreased job satisfaction secondary to increased electronic medical record and decreased patient time, unsupportive organizational culture, lack of transparency from leadership and inclusion in administrative decisions, emotionally intensive patient interactions, challenges within the radiation oncology workforce, financial security related to productivity-based compensation and increasing medical training-related debt, limited education on wellness, and fear of seeking mental health services due to stigma and potential negative impacts on the trajectory of one's career. Limited data exist to quantify the impacts of these factors on the overall levels of burnout within radiation oncology specifically, and additional efforts are needed to understand and address root causes of burnout within the field. Strategies should focus on improving the systems in which physicians work and providing the necessary skills and resources to thrive in high-stress, high-stakes work environments.


Asunto(s)
Agotamiento Profesional , COVID-19 , Oncología por Radiación , Humanos , Femenino , Pandemias , Agotamiento Profesional/psicología , Agotamiento Psicológico , Satisfacción en el Trabajo , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
16.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 20(5S): S187-S210, 2023 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37236742

RESUMEN

Prostate cancer is second leading cause of death from malignancy after lung cancer in American men. The primary goal during pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer is disease detection, localization, establishing disease extent (both local and distant), and evaluating aggressiveness, which are the driving factors of patient outcomes such as recurrence and survival. Prostate cancer is typically diagnosed after the recognizing elevated serum prostate-specific antigen level or abnormal digital rectal examination. Tissue diagnosis is obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI-targeted biopsy, commonly with multiparametric MRI without or with intravenous contrast, which has recently been established as standard of care for detecting, localizing, and assessing local extent of prostate cancer. Although bone scintigraphy and CT are still typically used to detect bone and nodal metastases in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer, novel advanced imaging modalities including prostatespecific membrane antigen PET/CT and whole-body MRI are being more frequently utilized for this purpose with improved detection rates. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.


Asunto(s)
Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Ultrasonografía , Sociedades Médicas
17.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 20(5S): S164-S186, 2023 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37236741

RESUMEN

Prostate cancer has a wide spectrum ranging between low-grade localized disease and castrate-resistant metastatic disease. Although whole gland and systematic therapies result in cure in the majority of patients, recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer can still occur. Imaging approaches including anatomic, functional, and molecular modalities are continuously expanding. Currently, recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer is grouped in three major categories: 1) Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after radical prostatectomy, 2) Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments, and 3) Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy). This document is a review of the current literature regarding imaging in these settings and the resulting recommendations for imaging. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Antagonistas de Andrógenos , Estudios de Seguimiento , Diagnóstico por Imagen/métodos , Sociedades Médicas
18.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys ; 116(3): 521-529, 2023 07 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36596347

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Decipher is a genomic classifier (GC) prospectively validated postprostatectomy. We validated the performance of the GC in pretreatment biopsy samples within the context of 3 randomized phase 3 high-risk definitive radiation therapy trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prespecified analysis plan (NRG-GU-TS006) was approved to obtain formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from biopsy specimens from the NRG biobank from patients enrolled in the NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9202, 9413, and 9902 phase 3 randomized trials. After central review, the highest-grade tumors were profiled on clinical-grade whole-transcriptome arrays and GC scores were obtained. The primary objective was to validate the independent prognostic ability for the GC for distant metastases (DM), and secondary for prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) with Cox univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: GC scores were obtained on 385 samples, of which 265 passed microarray quality control (69%) and had a median follow-up of 11 years (interquartile range, 9-13). In the pooled cohort, on univariable analysis, the GC was shown to be a prognostic factor for DM (per 0.1 unit; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.41; P < .001), PCSM (sHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.41; P < .001), and OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22; P < .001). On multivariable analyses, the GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently associated with DM (sHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36), PCSM (sHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.39), and OS (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20) after adjusting for age, Prostate Specific Antigen, Gleason score, cT stage, trial, and randomized treatment arm. GC had similar prognostic ability in patients receiving short-term or long-term androgen-deprivation therapy, but the absolute improvement in outcome varied by GC risk. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first validation of a gene expression biomarker on pretreatment prostate cancer biopsy samples from prospective randomized trials and demonstrates an independent association of GC score with DM, PCSM, and OS. High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state, and GC can improve risk stratification to help personalize shared decision making.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/genética , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Antagonistas de Andrógenos , Estudios Prospectivos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Genómica , Clasificación del Tumor , Biopsia
19.
J Clin Oncol ; 41(24): 4035-4044, 2023 08 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37315297

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To determine whether addition of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to brachytherapy (BT) (COMBO) compared with BT alone would improve 5-year freedom from progression (FFP) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer stage cT1c-T2bN0M0, Gleason Score (GS) 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 or GS 7, and PSA < 10 were eligible. The COMBO arm was EBRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions) to prostate and seminal vesicles followed by BT prostate boost (110 Gy if 125-Iodine, 100 Gy if 103-Pd). BT arm was delivered to prostate only (145 Gy if 125-Iodine, 125 Gy if 103-Pd). The primary end point was FFP: PSA failure (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ASTRO] or Phoenix definitions), local failure, distant failure, or death. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-eight men were randomly assigned; 579 were eligible: 287 and 292 in COMBO and BT arms, respectively. The median age was 67 years; 89.1% had PSA < 10 ng/mL, 89.1% had GS 7, and 66.7% had T1 disease. There were no differences in FFP. The 5-year FFP-ASTRO was 85.6% (95% CI, 81.4 to 89.7) with COMBO compared with 82.7% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.1) with BT (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.26; Greenwood T P = .18). The 5-year FFP-Phoenix was 88.0% (95% CI, 84.2 to 91.9) with COMBO compared with 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.6) with BT (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.30; Greenwood T P = .19). There were no differences in the rates of genitourinary (GU) or GI acute toxicities. The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 2+ toxicity is 42.8% (95% CI, 37.0 to 48.6) for COMBO compared with 25.8% (95% CI, 20.9 to 31.0) for BT (P < .0001). The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 3+ toxicity is 8.2% (95% CI, 5.4 to 11.8) compared with 3.8% (95% CI, 2.0 to 6.5; P = .006). CONCLUSION: Compared with BT, COMBO did not improve FFP for prostate cancer but caused greater toxicity. BT alone can be considered as a standard treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.


Asunto(s)
Braquiterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Braquiterapia/efectos adversos , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Resultado del Tratamiento , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años
20.
Eur Urol ; 84(2): 156-163, 2023 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37179241

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.


Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Andrógenos , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Docetaxel/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de Andrógenos/efectos adversos , Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Estudios de Seguimiento , Estudios Prospectivos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA