ライフサイエンスコーパス: radiation oncologist

1 the field of radiation oncology for the non-radiation oncologist.

2 nce, and Cochrane Library by a librarian and radiation oncologist.

3 of the hypoxic area were transferred to the radiation oncologist.

4 hared discussion between the patient and her radiation oncologist.

5 ith radiation is of utmost importance to the radiation oncologist.

6 sing standard lung windows and reviewed by a radiation oncologist.

7 ons from the patient's primary physician and radiation oncologist.

8 k included 7221 medical oncologists and 3573 radiation oncologists.

9 contoured by neuroradiologists and treating radiation oncologists.

10 mains a therapeutic challenge to medical and radiation oncologists.

11 ians to medical oncologists, urologists, and radiation oncologists.

12 come invaluable to medical, gynecologic, and radiation oncologists.

13 ists, 6 were medical oncologists, and 7 were radiation oncologists.

14 d of CEI data and interviews with practicing radiation oncologists.

15 nary fashion including otolaryngologists and radiation oncologists.

16 ons (2.01; 95% CI, 1.28-2.73; P < .001), and radiation oncologists (0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.77; P < .001

17 ed (104 of 128 medical oncologists, 34 of 37 radiation oncologists, 16 of 62 breast surgeons, 18 of 2

18 radiotherapy workforce in 2022 needed 51 111 radiation oncologists, 28 395 medical physicists, and 85

19 were medical oncologists; 29%, surgeons; 14% radiation oncologists; 37%, women; and 83%, research pri

20 (CEIs); (3) electronic surveys of practicing radiation oncologists; (4) mapping of existing items to

21 ies had no otolaryngologist (365 [61.0%]) or radiation oncologist (434 [72.6%]).

22 , and 85 184 radiation therapists and 84 646 radiation oncologists, 47 026 medical physicists, and 14

23 diologists in 1995, 14% were women; 12% were radiation oncologists, 62% diagnostic generalists, and 2

24 1%; n = 239), hematologists (14.5%; n = 96), radiation oncologists (7.4%; n = 49), surgeons (33.8%; n

25 standard error) diagnostic radiologists and radiation oncologists; 788 +/- 105 of these positions we

26 %, n = 371), hematologists (16.4%, n = 158), radiation oncologists (9.0%, n = 87), surgeons (30.3%, n

27 ctives regarding their interpretation from a radiation oncologist and a hematologist.

28 Three radiation oncologists and 3 radiation physicists ranked

29 ican Board of Radiology inclusive of current radiation oncologists and active residents, accounting f

30 archers, nuclear medicine technologists, and radiation oncologists and aims to identify possible barr

31 Radiation oncologists and hospice professionals both pro

32 The desire of radiation oncologists and medical physicists to maximise

33 anning requires strong collaboration between radiation oncologists and nuclear physicians.

34 In consultation with radiation oncologists and patients with breast cancer, w

35 cipants included medical, gynecological, and radiation oncologists and patients with stage IV maligna

36 vailability of diagnostic imaging equipment, radiation oncologists and radiotherapy capacity, and can

37 uided radiotherapy offers a new tool for the radiation oncologist, and creates an opportunity to achi

38 atients, time commitment, involvement of the radiation oncologist, and ideas for overcoming hurdles.

39 medical oncologists/hematologists, 50% were radiation oncologists, and 12% were surgical oncologists

40 of 35% among medical oncologists, 38% among radiation oncologists, and 28% to 36% among surgical onc

41 Medical Oncologists, Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists, and Canadian Society of Surgical

42 oration among surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and interventional radiologists t

43 ts (equally divided among otolaryngologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists) to solic

44 management of prostate cancer by urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists.

45 a collegial partnership among neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists.

46 pidly gained acceptance among neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and neuro-oncologists as a valuab

47 neuro-oncologists, clinicians, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons, was establishe

48 neuro-oncologists, clinicians, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons, was establishe

49 adult neuro-oncologists, neuro-radiologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons, was establishe

50 dom sample of 3,024 diagnostic radiologists, radiation oncologists, and nuclear medicine specialists

51 dom sample of 3,024 diagnostic radiologists, radiation oncologists, and nuclear medicine specialists;

52 arcity of medical oncologists, pathologists, radiation oncologists, and other health-care workers who

53 vices encounter data on medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons treating Medicare be

54 logists: aOR [95% CI], 0.91 [0.75-1.11] vs 1 radiation oncologist: aOR [95% CI], 0.91; 0.75-1.11).

55 rapy units at a ratio of 1:450 patients, for radiation oncologists at a ratio of 1:250 patients, for

56 lose collaboration between cardiologists and radiation oncologists at various levels is required to e

57 the preferred treatment option, while 72% of radiation oncologists believed surgery and external beam

58 cer treated with curative intent by a single radiation oncologist between July 1, 1993, and December

59 ly; not only is it a pragmatic framework for radiation oncologists, but it provides a measured propos

60 e tumour and the nearby healthy tissues, the radiation oncologist can deliver highly accurate treatme

61 Medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists can consider these findings when p

62 All patients with a medical or radiation oncologist consultation document generated wit

63 by nuclear medicine physicians, the CTVs by radiation oncologists contouring guidelines on the (68)G

64 edures were performed per week; 75% of these radiation oncologists did not see the patient prior to t

65 Based on this study, while urologists and radiation oncologists do agree on a variety of issues re

66 A nuclear medicine doctor and a radiation oncologist each performed the FDG PET/CT measu

67 Neurosurgeons and radiation oncologists exploring new methods of deliverin

68 Only radiation oncologists felt that radiation therapy was un

69 g framework integrates these factors to help radiation oncologists formulate strategic treatment reco

70 Radiation oncologists from 12 sites (with combined exper

71 In this report, paediatric radiation oncologists from leading centres in 11 Europea

72 Five radiation oncologists from three different institutions

73 care physicians, and medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, from both academic and community

74 re providers (including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, urologis

75 ; 95% CI, 1.03-1.18; P < .001 for trend) and radiation oncologists (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; P <

76 uld be sensitized to the special need of the radiation oncologist in terms of quantification and repr

77 d demand for radiation therapy and supply of radiation oncologists in 2010 and 2020 to determine whet

78 ovide a machine learning framework to assist radiation oncologists in determining the active motion m

79 rception of negative and close margins among radiation oncologists in NA and Europe.

80 The purpose of this study is to survey how radiation oncologists in North America (NA) and Europe d

81 g population and the importance of including radiation oncologists in the multidisciplinary managemen

82 ond survey was sent to 500 randomly selected radiation oncologists in the United States to assess whe

83 ment are recommended, but the involvement of radiation oncologists in this context has not been defin

84 To define FLR volume, two radiation oncologists independently delineated the borde

85 nication between diagnostic radiologists and radiation oncologists is essential, particularly given t

86 constant, the number of full-time equivalent radiation oncologists is expected to increase by only 2%

87 evaluation, including a consultation with a radiation oncologist, is recommended to assess benefits

88 sts, nurse practitioners, a urologist, and a radiation oncologist, is responsible for updating the CO

89 d on the CT dataset of the PET/CT image by a radiation oncologist masked to the PET component.

90 An experienced radiation oncologist, masked to the CT and PET/CT result

91 Nine radiation oncologists (mean [range] time in practice, 8

92 It is intended for radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and other rea

93 cologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, neuropsychologists, and experts i

94 , 1.9 to 45.0), at least one board-certified radiation oncologist (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 9.0), use

95 .58; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.38), lower density of radiation oncologists (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.86),

96 s who continued to see a medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, or surgeon were most likely to hav

97 included leading hematologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, and n

98 the other ART countries, all of which had <1 radiation oncologist per 100 000 population) and greater

99 ithuania [1.47] have a much higher number of radiation oncologists per 100 000 population than the ot

100 f gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and radiation oncologists per 100,000 people in each county

101 f gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and radiation oncologists per 100,000 people in urban vs rur

102 Radiation oncologists performed fluoroscopy and cineangi

103 demonstrate that on average, radiologists & radiation oncologists preferred automatic segmentations

104 A panel of radiation oncologists, radiobiologists, and medical phys

105 epatologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, interventional radi

106 eloped three questionnaires-targeted towards radiation oncologists, regulatory authorities, and resea

107 o recruit a sample of surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists representing a wide range of pract

108 as urologists (response rate 64%, n=504) and radiation oncologists (response rate 76%, n=559) in the

109 directed at cancer specialists (eg, medical/radiation oncologist, surgeon).

110 nary approach including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, interventionalists, and

111 ipline (adult/pediatric medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical/gynecologic oncologists,

112 Once the realm of surgeons and radiation oncologists, the treatment of locally advanced

113 ,221 Society of Nuclear Medicine members and radiation oncologists throughout the United States.

114 ng techniques and powerful computers allow a radiation oncologist to design treatments delivering hig

115 rgery decision, the patient consulted with a radiation oncologist to discuss the effect radiation may

116 in the 2D and 3D radiotherapy era instructed radiation oncologists to avoid dose inhomogeneity over g

117 ts per year in order for growth in supply of radiation oncologists to equal expected growth in demand

118 modality of proton beam therapy have enabled radiation oncologists to target tumors more successfully

119 pared to ground truth contours approved by a radiation oncologist, utilizing 13 distinct metrics.

120 Forty-three percent of radiation oncologists vs 16% of urologists would recomme

121 Supply of radiation oncologists was projected using data from the

122 Geographic access to thoracic surgeons and radiation oncologists was quantified using the 2-step fl

123 nt association overall, geographic access to radiation oncologists was significantly associated with

124 Otolaryngologists and radiation oncologists were recruited using purposive and

125 s between a nuclear medicine physician and a radiation oncologist, were delineated after coregistrati

126 horacic surgeon, a medical oncologist, and a radiation oncologist, whereas 1514 patients (15%) did no

127 w records from the many surgeons and medical/radiation oncologists who administer cancer therapies in

128 s can provide a basis for daily practice for radiation oncologists who have patients that require ver

129 f gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and radiation oncologists who traditionally provide colorect

130 iologists, nuclear medicine specialists, and radiation oncologists will be called on to perform a num

131 viewed, including 13 otolaryngologists and 8 radiation oncologists with a median of 8 years (IQR, 5-2

132 he contours are often made by highly trained radiation oncologists with limited time to dedicate to r

133 pecialists medical oncologists, surgeons, or radiation oncologists within 6 months after diagnosis.