ライフサイエンスコーパス: oncologist

1 0.47%) received chemotherapy from the second oncologist.

2 ussion between the patient and her radiation oncologist.

3 hat agree with judgements of a breast cancer oncologist.

4 g an opinion that differs from that of their oncologist.

5 discuss further management with the medical oncologist.

6 uld benefit from evaluation by an ophthalmic oncologist.

7 nly 26% of discussions were initiated by the oncologist.

8 [56.3%] non-Hispanic white) saw any medical oncologist.

9 poxic area were transferred to the radiation oncologist.

10 he therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists.

11 their opinions differed from those of their oncologists.

12 adiologists, medical oncologists, and immuno-oncologists.

13 ions of prognosis/life expectancy with their oncologists.

14 f 161 [96%]) were more optimistic than their oncologists.

15 ions of prognosis/life expectancy with their oncologists.

16 nical research associates and two paediatric oncologists.

17 om cooperation between pediatric and medical oncologists.

18 eral internists to $40 495 for hematologists-oncologists.

19 ng patient benefit and posing a challenge to oncologists.

20 ical oncologists, urologists, or gynecologic oncologists.

21 by neuroradiologists and treating radiation oncologists.

22 nterpretable return of results to practicing oncologists.

23 CRC meeting guidelines for referral among US oncologists.

24 tstanding unmet medical needs for urological oncologists.

25 and 5% medical physicists, radiographers, or oncologists.

26 ailty increasingly important for hematologic oncologists.

27 95% CI, 1.28-2.73; P < .001), and radiation oncologists (0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.77; P < .001) per 100,

28 kappa=0.83, 95% CI 0.60-1.00) and paediatric oncologists (0.84, 0.63-1.00).

29 Here, 2 oncologists, 1 of whom is also a palliative care special

30 Data from 38 oncologists (19 randomized to intervention) and 265 pati

31 fellows, training directors, and practicing oncologists; 2) an increase in funded training and clini

32 Regarding career plans, 270 oncologists (26.5%) reported a moderate or higher likeli

33 pated (response rate, 61%): 57% were medical oncologists; 29%, surgeons; 14% radiation oncologists; 3

34 The participants were oncologists (36.1%; n = 239), hematologists (14.5%; n =

35 From 1,117 oncologists (37.3% of overall sample) completing full-le

36 Among the 1,117 oncologists (37.3% of overall sample) who completed full

37 al oncologists; 29%, surgeons; 14% radiation oncologists; 37%, women; and 83%, research principal inv

38 Overall, 484 oncologists (44.7%) were burned out on the emotional exh

39 tal effects on their relationship with their oncologist (6 [4.7%] and 5 [3.9%]), loss of hope (3 [2.3

40 Although a majority of oncologists (64%) reported always/almost always discussi

41 ions of prognosis/life expectancy with their oncologists; 68 (38%) reported only past discussions; 24

42 ut causing harm (65.6% of patients; 74.0% of oncologists; 69.7% of the general public).

43 9), hematologists (14.5%; n = 96), radiation oncologists (7.4%; n = 49), surgeons (33.8%; n = 224), a

44 or big problem (75.8% of patients; 97.2% of oncologists; 75.3% of the general public) and thought Me

45 plied in anticancer treatment and have given oncologists a promising future.

46 y team including an experienced hematologist/oncologist, a high-risk obstetrics specialist, a neonato

47 sed on the experiences and points of view of oncologists about breaking bad news to patients.

48 5, we asked a national cohort of hematologic oncologists about the acceptability of eight standard EO

49 Moreover, DCE and DW MR imaging could help oncologists accentuate the follow-up for patients with a

50 Midwest/Southeast institutions and surgical oncologists accounted for majority of the grants (31.9%

51 Cancer drug prescribing by medical oncologists accounts for the greatest variation in pract

52 hours were 5 to 6 hours per week fewer than oncologists' actual reported work hours.

53 We characterized a network's inclusion of oncologists affiliated with NCI-Designated Cancer Center

54 provider networks are more likely to exclude oncologists affiliated with NCI-Designated or NCCN Cance

55 ation and its ethical acceptability, medical oncologists affiliated with the 40 National Cancer Insti

56 Here, an oncologist and an internist discuss how they would balan

57 is to narrow the gap between the practicing oncologist and ongoing national efforts to provide preci

58 Participants were 18 non-black medical oncologists and 112 black patients.

59 patient requires cancer therapy, the team of oncologists and cardiologists must be better equipped wi

60 test improved decision making for referring oncologists and changed management for most subjects.

61 hypophysitis and hypopituitarism; therefore, oncologists and endocrinologists should be vigilant and

62 In the intervention group (n = 51), oncologists and families received printed reports summar

63 ry-based risk calculator for classical HL by oncologists and genetic counselors.

64 in the ICU, and close collaboration between oncologists and ICU teams are targets to improve mortali

65 ; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.07) and meetings between oncologists and intensivists (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 1.15 to

66 I, 0.87 to 0.98), and daily meetings between oncologists and intensivists for care planning (OR, 0.69

67 ents, image-guided surgery provides surgical oncologists and interventional radiologists both macrosc

68 t their opinions differed from that of their oncologists and nearly all of them (155 of 161 [96%]) we

69 ome patients with cancer will have access to oncologists and needed treatment.

70 e of multidisciplinary collaboration between oncologists and nephrologists to predict and prevent che

71 rs of the American Association of Ophthalmic Oncologists and Pathologists (AAOOP) with support of the

72 nteraction length of time and amount of time oncologists and patients spoke.

73 issued guidelines for cancer care to enable oncologists and patients to navigate the crisis.

74 Oncologists and specialists involved in the pluridiscipl

75 ports summarizing PROs; e-mails were sent to oncologists and subspecialists when predetermined scores

76 important shared multidisciplinary goal for oncologists and their patients.

77 evaluate the association between density of oncologists and travel distance and receipt of adjuvant

78 ed the frequency and factors associated with oncologists' and primary care physicians' (PCPs) reports

79 otherapy offers a new tool for the radiation oncologist, and creates an opportunity to achieve durabl

80 upplemental insurance), consultation with an oncologist, and receipt of chemotherapy.

81 16 women (69% white, 31% black), 808 medical oncologists, and 732 surgeons.

82 nts with NSCLC, aiming to provide a guide to oncologists, and consider how to maximise therapeutic ad

83 pinion of hematopathologists, hematologists, oncologists, and geneticists.

84 ineers, interventional radiologists, medical oncologists, and immuno-oncologists.

85 nd it requires the collaboration of imagers, oncologists, and industry to reach its true clinical pot

86 ranted among rheumatologists, hematologists, oncologists, and infectious disease specialists.

87 Dermatologists, oncologists, and nephrologists need to be aware of this

88 logists, clinicians, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons, was established to addre

89 logists, clinicians, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons, was established to addre

90 multidisciplinary approach among ICU staff, oncologists, and organ specialists and adoption of stand

91 , the intentions of neurosurgeons, pediatric oncologists, and radiotherapists to improve care for ped

92 experts, patient representatives, community oncologists, and relevant health providers is formed to

93 Determining how patients with cancer, oncologists, and the general public view Medicare spendi

94 medical center, a random national sample of oncologists, and the general public were surveyed betwee

95 ent of accrediting examinations for clinical oncologists; and 4) interaction with policymakers to bro

96 the articles included, it is important that oncologists are aware of the risk factors for cancer-rel

97 r step forward from the stereotyped way that oncologists are currently trained in communication skill

98 private insurance who resided in low-density oncologist areas were less likely to receive adjuvant ch

99 first nationwide study, to our knowledge, of oncologists assessing attitudes, knowledge, and institut

100 work's breadth and its relative inclusion of oncologists associated with NCI-Designated Cancer Center

101 elopmental biologists, tumor biologists, and oncologists attempting to understand how physical parame

102 our new entities identified, that should get oncologists' attention.

103 gy, vascular medicine, and vascular surgery; oncologists; basic scientists; the Food and Drug Adminis

104 lopment of a useful app and to help ASCO and oncologists better understand the mechanics, difficultie

105 UM treated by enucleation by a single ocular oncologist between November 1, 1998, and July 31, 2014.

106 cancer drug regimens by 1,867 participating oncologists between 2013 and 2017.

107 refer to have these needs addressed by their oncologist but also want their primary care provider to

108 their opinions differed from those of their oncologists by asking the patients to report how they be

109 nd the nearby healthy tissues, the radiation oncologist can deliver highly accurate treatment even to

110 tially providing a teachable moment in which oncologists can encourage and assist patients to quit-bu

111 asurement and reporting system through which oncologists can harness the depth and power of their pat

112 asurement and reporting system through which oncologists can harness the depth and power of their pat

113 Oncologists can protect their patients by having a high

114 We assembled key experts and stakeholders (oncologists, cancer registrars, epidemiologists) and use

115 creasing importance for the neurologists and oncologists caring for this growing patient population.

116 re grouped as underestimated or not if their oncologists' charted risk assessments were lower than as

117 national panel of paediatric and adult neuro-oncologists, clinicians, radiologists, radiation oncolog

118 national panel of paediatric and adult neuro-oncologists, clinicians, radiologists, radiation oncolog

119 ions of prognosis/life expectancy with their oncologists come to have a better understanding of the t

120 Observers rated oncologist communication and recorded interaction length

121 A combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patie

122 it racial bias is negatively associated with oncologist communication, patients' reactions to raciall

123 culty completing them, through its impact on oncologists' communication (as rated by both patients an

124 ions, and patients and observers rated these oncologists' communication as less patient-centered and

125 overing a mean of 39.4% (SD, 26.2%) of those oncologists, compared with 8.8 oncologists per 100,000 r

126 Oncologists completed an implicit racial bias measure se

127 5% CI, .24 to .96; P = .04), who trusted the oncologist completely (OR, .32; 95% CI, .17 to .63; P =

128 ation of type of supplemental insurance with oncologist consultation and receipt of chemotherapy.

129 Of 2,998 oncologists contacted, 1,490 (49.7%) returned surveys (m

130 tic armamentarium available to genitourinary oncologists continues to grow, but much work remains to

131 e of discussing end-of-life care early, with oncologists cued to endorse question-asking and question

132 urveyed about their experiences with medical oncologists, decision making, and chemotherapy use.

133 view by a multidisciplinary team of clinical oncologists, dietitians, gastroenterologists, medical on

134 ith less education more often preferred that oncologists direct certain aspects of their care after b

135 table minority of women preferred that their oncologists direct this care (21% and 16%, respectively)

136 usions and Relevance: In this study, patient-oncologist discordance about survival prognosis was comm

137 On average, oncologists discussed use of HS with 41% of their patien

138 Often, oncologists do not wish to delay cancer treatment while

139 Two main themes emerged: the patient-oncologist encounter during the breaking of bad news, co

140 ns; and external factors shaping the patient-oncologist encounter, composed of factors that influence

141 f Clinical Oncology conducted a survey of US oncologists evaluating burnout and career satisfaction.

142 f Clinical Oncology conducted a survey of US oncologists evaluating satisfaction with WLB and career

143 th NCI-Designated Cancer Centers relative to oncologists excluded from the network within the same re

144 ctations for survival that differ from their oncologists' expectations.

145 ancers refractory to prior chemotherapy whom oncologists expected to die within 6 months were intervi

146 hile on systemic sunitinib prescribed by her oncologist for metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine and

147 with advanced cancer were referred by their oncologists for germline analysis of 76 cancer predispos

148 Oncologists frequently encounter oral mucositis, which c

149 A random sample of 450 oncologists from 45 cancer centers was selected from the

150 em that precludes many cancer biologists and oncologists from gleaning knowledge from these data rega

151 In this report, paediatric radiation oncologists from leading centres in 11 European countrie

152 We identified 40 articles (> 600 oncologists) from 12 countries and assessed their qualit

153 g of neuroendocrine tumor experts, including oncologists, gastroenterologists, and endocrinologists,

154 Patients with Medicare only who saw an oncologist had comparable rates of chemotherapy compared

155 baseline, patients were asked whether their oncologist had disclosed an estimate of prognosis.

156 o other dimensions of well-being, practicing oncologists had lower fatigue (P < .001) and better over

157 Cardio-oncologists have identified promising preventive and tre

158 ve care professionals, pain specialists, and oncologists have long been advocating for the aggressive

159 As predicted, oncologists higher in implicit racial bias had shorter i

160 gists (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78), medical oncologists (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91), or surgeons (

161 Medical oncologists identified 39 hospitalizations (19%) as pote

162 re likely to discuss their wishes with their oncologist if they were dying (30.2% v 14.5%; P = .004).

163 g group that consisted of practicing medical oncologists, immunologists, clinical researchers, biosta

164 In addition, oncologist implicit bias indirectly predicted less patie

165 We further investigated whether oncologist implicit bias negatively affects patients' pe

166 We predicted oncologist implicit bias would negatively affect communi

167 Thus, we examined whether oncologist implicit racial bias has similar effects in o

168 Oncologist implicit racial bias is negatively associated

169 sitized to the special need of the radiation oncologist in terms of quantification and reproducibilit

170 ical record review reported by participating oncologists in 2013.

171 enerate anti-tumour immunity 'on demand' for oncologists in a variety of settings.

172 than 15 years have been treated by pediatric oncologists in collaboration with their surgical special

173 chine learning framework to assist radiation oncologists in determining the active motion management

174 ts and vascular biologists work closely with oncologists in the care of patients with cancer and canc

175 recruited from practices of 24 participating oncologists in western New York.

176 en was highly segregated across surgeons and oncologists (index of dissimilarity 64.1 and 61.9, respe

177 Oncologists interested in applying NLP for clinical rese

178 controlled trial (RCT) of a combined patient-oncologist intervention to improve communication in adva

179 inable health system will necessitate future oncologists, investigators, and policy makers to reconci

180 In this Viewpoint, we asked two leading oncologists involved in clinical drug development, an ex

181 on among the dentist, dental specialist, and oncologist is essential to optimal patient care.

182 lose collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists is required to meet the demand of an increas

183 n, including a consultation with a radiation oncologist, is recommended to assess benefits and risks

184 ion, including a consultation with a medical oncologist, is recommended to assess benefits and risks

185 This national survey explored oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns

186 We studied the impact of a newly-formed, oncologist-led 'mainstreaming' germline BRCA testing pat

187 y provides further evidence of the impact of oncologist-led 'mainstreaming' programs.

188 Oncologists made a preliminary recommendation for endocr

189 T dataset of the PET/CT image by a radiation oncologist masked to the PET component.

190 4 wk, assessed in consensus by 2 experienced oncologists masked to PET imaging findings, was used as

191 An experienced radiation oncologist, masked to the CT and PET/CT results, decided

192 A second opinion from a medical oncologist may facilitate decision making for women with

193 nformal consensus, the Panel recommends that oncologists may offer chemoendocrine therapy to patients

194 nformal consensus, the panel recommends that oncologists may offer chemoendocrine therapy to these pa

195 Research-minded oncologists may push the avenues of evidence-based resea

196 Oncologists may use this to tailor palliative therapy fo

197 New York and Northern California; 38 medical oncologists (mean age 44.6 years; 11 (29%) female) and 2

198 nternational working group consists of neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, neuroradiologists, neu

199 proach to clinical practice, we propose that oncologists might finally be able to utilize effective g

200 se of population geneticists, multispecialty oncologists, molecular epidemiologists, and behavioral s

201 Control-group oncologists (n = 12) and patients (n = 86) received no i

202 Intervention-group oncologists (n = 12) received individualized communicati

203 neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, neuropsychologists, and experts in clinical

204 group consists of neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, radiation

205 ts, dietitians, gastroenterologists, medical oncologists, nurses, pharmacist, and a surgeon.

206 Multivariable analyses found women oncologists (odds ratio [OR], 0.458; P < .001) and those

207 iscontinued following a consulation with the oncologist of the patient.

208 onal predictor of burnout for both PP and AP oncologists on univariable and multivariable analyses.

209 Given that oncologists or haematologists accounted for only 17 (19%

210 emented in clinical practice to assist neuro-oncologists or radiologists.

211 g on average 49.9% (SD, 26.8%) of the area's oncologists ( P < .001 for all comparisons).

212 The panel included representative ophthalmic oncologists, pathologists, and geneticists from retinobl

213 Expert panel of ophthalmic oncologists, pathologists, and geneticists.

214 ational multidisciplinary group of pediatric oncologists, pathologists, biologists, and radiologists

215 eading hematologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, and nuclear med

216 eractions, patients answered questions about oncologists' patient-centeredness and difficulty remembe

217 ne whether a combined intervention involving oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregive

218 terologists, general surgeons, and radiation oncologists per 100,000 people in each county was estima

219 terologists, general surgeons, and radiation oncologists per 100,000 people in urban vs rural countie

220 .2%) of those oncologists, compared with 8.8 oncologists per 100,000 residents and 3.2 (SD, 2.1) netw

221 I-Designated Cancer Centers, there were 13.7 oncologists per 100,000 residents and 4.9 (standard devi

222 tify relevant qualitative research exploring oncologists' perspectives about this topic.

223 titutions, and train a generation of medical oncologists, physician scientists, and cancer biologists

224 cancer should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of therapy.

225 Oncologists' question prompt list and question asking en

226 e 2011, that included leading hematologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, radiol

227 y involving hepatologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, interv

228 multidisciplinary approach including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, interventi

229 A panel of radiation oncologists, radiobiologists, and medical physicists fro

230 ts, surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, interventional radiologists,

231 e patients to report how they believed their oncologists rated their 2-year survival.

232 rtained discordance by comparing patient and oncologist ratings of 2-year survival probability.

233 Oncologists received individualized communication traini

234 Many oncologists recognize that chronological age alone shoul

235 The RS substantially influenced both oncologists' recommendations and patients' preferences f

236 Oncologists' recommendations pretest and post-test remai

237 After the test, oncologists recommended chemotherapy for 236 patients, 8

238 ival expectations differ from those of their oncologists remains unknown.

239 A minority of both PCPs and oncologists reported consistently discussing and providi

240 A total of 109 oncologists reported information on 506 patients with GI

241 esting Medicare cost sharing but, except for oncologists, resisted the idea of an independent oversig

242 wenty-six patients (response rate, 72%), 250 oncologists (response rate, 55%), and 891 members of the

243 , 2.63; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.02), receipt of an oncologist's advice to consider hospice (OR, 6.09; 95% C

244 s in lung cancer therapy and transformed the oncologist's approach to patients with lung cancer.

245 er and thus become additional weapons in the oncologist's armory.

246 Patients who reported their oncologist's treatment goal was "to cure my cancer" had

247 .001) among patients who acknowledged their oncologist's treatment goal was not "to cure my cancer."

248 The proportion of oncologists satisfied with WLB (n = 345; 33.4%) ranked l

249 Oncologists seem to have embraced RPMs (particularly Adj

250 Oncologists should consider discussing CAM with their pa

251 between the treatment groups, gynaecological oncologists should recommend open radical hysterectomy f

252 In this large national cohort of hematologic oncologists, standard EOL quality measures were highly a

253 vidual health insurance exchanges, assessing oncologist supply and network participation in areas tha

254 ach including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, interventionalists, and pain spec

255 64.5 [11.4] years; 54% female), 161 patient-oncologist survival prognosis ratings (68%; 95% CI, 62%-

256 ile potent cytotoxic agents are available to oncologists, the clinical utility of these agents is lim

257 st cancer tend to see different surgeons and oncologists, this distribution does not contribute to di

258 sion, the patient consulted with a radiation oncologist to discuss the effect radiation may have on h

259 allocated before their initial visit with an oncologist to PRE-ACT (n = 623) or control (n = 632).

260 ng bad news is a balancing act that requires oncologists to adapt continually to different factors: t

261 and 3D radiotherapy era instructed radiation oncologists to avoid dose inhomogeneity over growing ver

262 cases was performed by 2 independent medical oncologists to compare treatment recommendations and act

263 It is a challenge for oncologists to distinguish patients with breast cancer w

264 rapy stratification in particular, assisting oncologists to find the best possible treatment options

265 a framework for practicing hematologists and oncologists to make rational treatment decisions for pat

266 The current COVID-19 pandemic challenges oncologists to profoundly re-organize oncological care i

267 oser collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists to study the cardiovascular and cardiometabo

268 The delivery of bad news by oncologists to their patients is a key moment in the phy

269 Patients were followed by general community oncologists until death or the end of follow-up.

270 sciplinary approach involving nephrologists, oncologists, urologists and pathologists.

271 dults with GCTs often are treated by medical oncologists, urologists, or gynecologic oncologists.

272 Practising oncologists used a consensus-driven medical record revie

273 ion coded from audio recordings of the first oncologist visit following patient coaching (interventio

274 show that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and prep

275 gnosis-related topics, during the subsequent oncologist visit.

276 dentify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit.

277 including prognosis, during their subsequent oncologist visits.

278 clinical research associates and paediatric oncologists was almost perfect (0.92, 0.78-1.00).

279 Density level of oncologists was not statistically associated with receip

280 rate of burnout among fellows and practicing oncologists was similar (34.1% v. 33.7%; P = .86).

281 PCPs who received SCPs from oncologists were 9x more likely (95% CI, 5.74 to 14.82)

282 p care and coordinated care between PCPs and oncologists were associated with increased survivorship

283 nts who resided in areas with low density of oncologists were less likely to receive adjuvant chemoth

284 Although a majority of oncologists were satisfied with their career (82.5%) and

285 troenterologists, radiologists, surgeons and oncologists -were selected on the basis of their publica

286 a nuclear medicine physician and a radiation oncologist, were delineated after coregistration of PET

287 l leader, typically a well-trained pediatric oncologist who devotes full-time effort to the project,

288 with signs and symptoms of malignancy to an oncologist who has the tools to treat a patient's cancer

289 uth, which was established by an independent oncologist who used all previously available pathology,

290 This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the

291 ide a basis for daily practice for radiation oncologists who have patients that require vertebral rad

292 6 patients with advanced cancer and their 38 oncologists who participated in a randomized trial of an

293 Oncologists who reported detailed training about late an

294 n problematic in adults because most general oncologists who treat adults are not familiar with its u

295 However, oncologists who treat adults may be reluctant to use peg

296 physicians-a general internist and a medical oncologist with genetics experience-discuss an approach

297 Ultimately, such predictive models may aid oncologists with making critical treatment decisions.

298 complete response and could potentially help oncologists with management decisions.

299 ts of MSCC management germane to the medical oncologist, with special attention given to pain and sym

300 patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer