Skip header and navigation

Refine By

8 records – page 1 of 1.

[Brain tumours: analysis of epidemiology and neuro-oncology service status in the Ul'ianovsk region].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature114042
Source
Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 2013;77(1):62-5; discussion 65
Publication Type
Article
Date
2013
Author
R F Ishmatov
Source
Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 2013;77(1):62-5; discussion 65
Date
2013
Language
Russian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Brain Neoplasms - diagnosis - epidemiology - therapy
Child
Delivery of Health Care - standards
Female
Humans
Male
Medical Oncology - standards - trends
Middle Aged
Neurosurgical Procedures - standards - trends
Russia
Young Adult
Abstract
The incidence of brain tumours: analysis of epidemiology figures and neurooncology service status in the Ulyanovsk region during 1996-2005 was investigated. This article demonstrates lack of early brain tumour diagnosis in the region owing to insufficient equipment of medical care facilities and low level of expertise among primary care phycisians. Risk factors for complications development and increase in postoperative mortality are defined. The uniform algorithm of medical care for brain tumour patients will allow considerably improve treatment results.
PubMed ID
23659122 View in PubMed
Less detail

Evidence-based approach to the introduction of positron emission tomography in ontario, Canada.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature147738
Source
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5607-13
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-20-2009
Author
William K Evans
Andreas Laupacis
Karen Y Gulenchyn
Les Levin
Mark Levine
Author Affiliation
Juravinski Cancer Centre at Hamilton Health Sciences and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. bill.evans@jcc.hhsc.ca
Source
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5607-13
Date
Nov-20-2009
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Clinical Trials as Topic
Evidence-Based Medicine - economics
Female
Forecasting
Health Care Costs
Health Planning - organization & administration
Humans
Male
Medical Oncology - standards - trends
National health programs - organization & administration
Ontario
Positron-Emission Tomography - economics - utilization
Registries
Abstract
The uptake of new health care technologies is usually driven by industry promotion, physician interest, patient demand, and institutional ability to acquire the technology. The introduction of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in the province of Ontario, Canada, followed a different path.
The Ontario provincial government, through its Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, commissioned a systematic review of the literature. When this found only weak evidence that PET has a positive impact on clinical outcomes, the Ministry introduced a provincial PET evaluation program to close the evidence gap.
This article describes the challenges encountered establishing the PET evaluation program. These included the design and conduct of the initial clinical trials, the establishment of a PET cancer registry, standardizing how PET scans were performed and reported, and gaining acceptance by health professionals for the evaluative program.
The proliferation of health technologies is a key driver of increasing health care costs. The Ontario approach to the introduction of PET is a model worth consideration by health systems seeking to ensure that they receive value for money based on a strong evidentiary base when introducing new health technologies.
PubMed ID
19858395 View in PubMed
Less detail

Management of recurrent locoregional breast cancer: oncologist survey.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature182527
Source
Breast. 2003 Oct;12(5):328-37
Publication Type
Article
Date
Oct-2003
Author
M. Clemons
T. Hamilton
J. Mansi
G. Lockwood
P. Goss
Author Affiliation
Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2M9. mark.clemons@tsrcc.on.ca
Source
Breast. 2003 Oct;12(5):328-37
Date
Oct-2003
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Biopsy, Needle
Breast Neoplasms - mortality - pathology - therapy
Canada
Chi-Square Distribution
Combined Modality Therapy
Female
Great Britain
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Male
Medical Oncology - standards - trends
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - mortality - pathology - therapy
Neoplasm Staging
Physician's Practice Patterns
Probability
Questionnaires
Risk assessment
Survival Analysis
Treatment Outcome
United States
Abstract
Locoregional recurrence (LRR) after therapy for early breast cancer is common. A questionnaire was used to assess consensus between breast oncologists about the definition, prognosis and management of patients with LRR. The questionnaire was mailed to surgical, radiation and medical oncologists in Canada, the UK and the USA. Of 495 questionnaires, 322 (65%) were returned. Most clinicians sampled agree that disease in the skin of the chest wall, surgical scar, axilla, ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), infraclavicular lymph nodes, supraclavicular fossa lymph nodes and internal mammary lymph nodes constitute sites of LRR. The sites that were felt to be curable by the majority of respondents were: IBTR, surgical scar, axilla or chest wall. It was for these disease sites that local therapy was generally recommended. Irrespective of the site of recurrence, most respondents surveyed recommend initiation of a new systemic therapy at the time of LRR. While the results of this survey show general agreement regarding the definition of sites of LRR, treatment recommendations vary among oncologists. Due to the variation in sites of recurrence, time since initial diagnosis and prior therapy, the exact prognosis and optimal management of LRR remain undefined. In the absence of randomized prospective trial data, recommendations for local and systemic therapy of LRR will continue to mimic those offered at the time of initial presentation of breast cancer.
PubMed ID
14659148 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Onco-epidemiology--are we still going to show the way in Denmark?]

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature20688
Source
Ugeskr Laeger. 1999 Nov 8;161(45):6160
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-8-1999
Author
H H Storm
Source
Ugeskr Laeger. 1999 Nov 8;161(45):6160
Date
Nov-8-1999
Language
Danish
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Databases
Denmark - epidemiology
Humans
Medical Oncology - standards - trends
Neoplasms - epidemiology
Registries
PubMed ID
10603749 View in PubMed
Less detail

Use of geriatric assessment for older adults in the oncology setting: a systematic review.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature122073
Source
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Aug 8;104(15):1133-63
Publication Type
Article
Date
Aug-8-2012
Author
M T E Puts
J. Hardt
J. Monette
V. Girre
E. Springall
S M H Alibhai
Author Affiliation
Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. martine.puts@utoronto.ca
Source
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Aug 8;104(15):1133-63
Date
Aug-8-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Canada
Comorbidity
Europe
Geriatric Assessment
Humans
Medical Oncology - standards - trends
Neoplasms
Nutrition Assessment
Psychometrics
Questionnaires - standards
Sensitivity and specificity
United States
Abstract
Geriatric assessment is a multidisciplinary diagnostic process that evaluates the older adult's medical, psychological, social, and functional capacity. No systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment in oncology has been conducted. The goals of this systematic review were: 1) to provide an overview of all geriatric assessment instruments used in the oncology setting; 2) to examine the feasibility and psychometric properties of those instruments; and 3) to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of geriatric assessment in predicting or modifying outcomes (including the impact on treatment decision making, toxicity of treatment, and mortality).
We searched Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English, French, Dutch, or German between January 1, 1996, and November 16, 2010, reporting on cross-sectional, longitudinal, interventional, or observational studies that assessed the feasibility or effectiveness of geriatric assessment instruments. The quality of articles was evaluated using relevant quality assessment frameworks.
We identified 83 articles that reported on 73 studies. The quality of most studies was poor to moderate. Eleven studies examined psychometric properties or diagnostic accuracy of the geriatric assessment instruments used. The assessment generally took 10-45 min. Geriatric assessment was most often completed to describe a patient's health and functional status. Specific domains of geriatric assessment were associated with treatment toxicity in 6 of 9 studies and with mortality in 8 of 16 studies. Of the four studies that examined the impact of geriatric assessment on the cancer treatment decision, two found that geriatric assessment impacted 40%-50% of treatment decisions.
Geriatric assessment in the oncology setting is feasible, and some domains are associated with adverse outcomes. However, there is limited evidence that geriatric assessment impacted treatment decision making. Further research examining the effectiveness of geriatric assessment on treatment decisions and outcomes is needed.
Notes
Cites: Rev Mal Respir. 2008 Mar;25(3):295-30218449095
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 May;63(5):518-2218511757
Cites: Oncology. 2007;73(5-6):290-718477854
Cites: Rev Med Interne. 2008 Jul;29(7):541-918304703
Cites: Urology. 2008 Aug;72(2):422-718561991
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Jul;63(7):724-3018693227
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008 Nov;68(2):157-6418723367
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008 Nov;68(2):165-7118774729
Cites: Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Dec;12(6):941-919064388
Cites: Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009 Mar-Apr;48(2):222-618336933
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 10;27(17):2758-6519403886
Cites: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Sep 2;101(17):1206-1519638506
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Sep 10;27(26):4346-5119652074
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-1219631508
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 20;28(3):380-620008637
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010 Mar;73(3):236-4519748793
Cites: Lung Cancer. 2010 Feb;67(2):232-619427054
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010 Mar;65(3):322-920018824
Cites: Oncol Rep. 2004 Jan;11(1):197-20614654926
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004 Jan;49(1):69-7514734156
Cites: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2004 Feb;16(1):17-2314768751
Cites: Clin Prostate Cancer. 2004 Mar;2(4):236-4015072607
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004 Sep;51(3):241-715331081
Cites: Oncology. 2004;67(1):27-3215459492
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1984 Dec 27;311(26):1664-706390207
Cites: Aging (Milano). 1989;1(2):87-982488312
Cites: Lancet. 1993 Oct 23;342(8878):1032-68105269
Cites: Cancer. 1996 Jan 15;77(2):395-4018625250
Cites: Cancer Pract. 1997 Mar-Apr;5(2):81-69110643
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 1998 Apr;16(4):1582-79552069
Cites: BMJ. 1998 Sep 19;317(7161):771-59740561
Cites: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2004 Dec;13(5):483-9315606716
Cites: Chest. 2005 Mar;127(3):886-9115764772
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005 May;54(2):129-3615843095
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 1;23(16):3802-1015923574
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2006 Feb;57(2):175-8216213740
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 20;24(15):2298-30316710027
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 20;24(15):2304-1016710028
Cites: J Chemother. 2006 Apr;18(2):188-9116736888
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Jun;54(6):925-3116776787
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Jul;54(7):1119-2416866685
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010 May;74(2):97-10519520589
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 20;28(12):2046-5020308657
Cites: BJU Int. 2010 Aug;106(4):462-920346033
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010 Sep;75(3):243-820060313
Cites: Surg Oncol. 2010 Sep;19(3):117-2320006489
Cites: CA Cancer J Clin. 2010 Sep-Oct;60(5):277-30020610543
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010 Nov;76(2):142-5119939699
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010 Dec;76(3):208-1720005123
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011 Jan;77(1):63-920116276
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011 Feb;77(2):148-6120353897
Cites: J Surg Res. 2011 Mar;166(1):5-1320828735
Cites: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr;137(4):733-820602238
Cites: Ann Oncol. 2011 Jul;22(7):1520-721252061
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(7):CD00621121735403
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011 Aug;79(2):196-20420655243
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011 Aug;79(2):205-1220709565
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011 Sep;79(3):302-720888781
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 1;29(25):3457-6521810685
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 20;29(27):3636-4221709194
Cites: Eur J Cancer. 2012 Apr;48(6):805-1221741826
Cites: Am J Clin Oncol. 2012 Aug;35(4):322-821422992
Cites: Cancer. 2009 Oct 1;115(19):4547-5319562776
Cites: Cancer. 2005 Jun 15;103(12):2623-815900574
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005 Jun;60(6):798-80315983186
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005 Sep;55(3):241-5216084735
Cites: Ann Oncol. 2005 Nov;16(11):1795-80016093275
Cites: Cancer. 2005 Nov 1;104(9):1998-200516206252
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1290-621357782
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011 May;78(2):138-4920444620
Cites: Urology. 2011 Apr;77(4):934-4021269665
Cites: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011 May;137(5):839-4720820804
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011 Jul;79(1):51-6420663685
Cites: Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2000 Feb;14(1):235-50, xi10680080
Cites: JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-1210789670
Cites: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000 Aug;62(3):217-2211072786
Cites: Oncology (Williston Park). 2000 Nov;14(11A):221-711195414
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2001 Sep;39(3):269-7311500267
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jan 15;20(2):494-50211786579
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2002 Feb 1;20(3):770-511821460
Cites: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2003 Sep;12(3):257-6212919305
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2003 Sep 1;21(17):3214-912874269
Cites: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2006 Jul;7(1):65-916879772
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2006 Sep;59(3):205-1016904902
Cites: Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Oct 15;12(20 Pt 1):6100-517062686
Cites: Rev Mal Respir. 2006 Sep;23(4 Pt 1):307-1817127906
Cites: Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2006 Dec;3(12):642-317139312
Cites: Lung Cancer. 2007 Jan;55(1):125-717064811
Cites: Ann Oncol. 2007 Feb;18(2):256-6217082510
Cites: Cancer. 2007 Feb 15;109(4):802-1017219443
Cites: Tumori. 2007 Jan-Feb;93(1):23-517455867
Cites: Surg Oncol. 2006 Dec;15(4):189-9717531743
Cites: Oncol Nurs Forum. 2007 Mar;34(2):341-617573298
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007 Jul;62(7):731-717634320
Cites: Support Care Cancer. 2007 Sep;15(9):1097-10417318590
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2007 Oct;64(1):1-917613243
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Oct;55(10):1604-817697101
Cites: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec;133(12):945-5017534661
Cites: Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2007 Dec;11(6):929-3318063551
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008 Feb;65(2):156-6318082416
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-918313558
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008 Apr;66(1):75-8318164209
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Mar;63(3):272-418375875
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008 May;66(2):163-7018243726
Cites: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008 Jun;66(3):229-3618243011
PubMed ID
22851269 View in PubMed
Less detail

8 records – page 1 of 1.