ライフサイエンスコーパス: oncologist

1 [56.3%] non-Hispanic white) saw any medical oncologist.

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

3 discuss further management with the medical oncologist.

4 poxic area were transferred to the radiation oncologist.

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

6 aluation or management claims from a medical oncologist.

7 0.47%) received chemotherapy from the second oncologist.

8 ussion between the patient and her radiation oncologist.

9 hat agree with judgements of a breast cancer oncologist.

10 ions of prognosis/life expectancy with their oncologists.

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

12 ions of prognosis/life expectancy with their oncologists.

13 nical research associates and two paediatric oncologists.

14 om cooperation between pediatric and medical oncologists.

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

16 ailty increasingly important for hematologic oncologists.

17 ng patient benefit and posing a challenge to oncologists.

18 ical oncologists, urologists, or gynecologic oncologists.

19 nterpretable return of results to practicing oncologists.

20 CRC meeting guidelines for referral among US oncologists.

21 and individualized to clinics and individual oncologists.

22 he therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists.

23 their opinions differed from those of their oncologists.

24 95% CI, 1.28-2.73; P < .001), and radiation oncologists (0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.77; P < .001) per 100,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 Among eligible oncologists, 392 (42%) responded to the questionnaire.

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

36 diation (8%), orthopedic (22%), and surgical oncologists (45%).

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

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

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

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

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

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

43 Most oncologists (93%) perceived one or more barriers in comm

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

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

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

47 5, we asked a national cohort of hematologic oncologists about the acceptability of eight standard EO

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

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

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

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

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

53 Overall career satisfaction is high among US oncologists, albeit lower for those in PP relative to AP

54 f interest to cancer biologists and clinical oncologists alike.

55 aluate the relationships between the patient-oncologist alliance, psychosocial well-being, and treatm

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 A nationally representative sample of 1,130 oncologists and 1,020 PCPs was surveyed about survivorsh

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

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

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 gists, surgeons, radiologists, pathologists, oncologists and geneticists.

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

66 ; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.07) and meetings between oncologists and intensivists (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 1.15 to

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

68 rough analysis of primary tumors and CTCs to oncologists and medical specialists in managing patients

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

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

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

74 and the ethical return of genetic results to oncologists and their patients.

75 important shared multidisciplinary goal for oncologists and their patients.

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

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

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

79 of HCC diagnosis, being seen by a surgeon or oncologist, and treatment.

80 16 women (69% white, 31% black), 808 medical oncologists, and 732 surgeons.

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

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

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

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

85 l partnership among neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists.

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

87 medical oncologists, pathologists, radiation oncologists, and other health-care workers who are neede

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

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

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

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

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

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

94 Fewer than one half of oncologists are initiating discussions with patients abo

95 eutic options commonly used by head and neck oncologists are reviewed in context with current clinica

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

97 were compared with actual experiences of US oncologists assessed simultaneously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

104 It explores how medical physicists and oncologists can best apply CBCT for therapeutic applicat

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

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

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

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

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

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

111 Observers rated oncologist communication and recorded interaction length

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

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

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

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

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

117 Oncologists completed an implicit racial bias measure se

118 5% CI, .24 to .96; P = .04), who trusted the oncologist completely (OR, .32; 95% CI, .17 to .63; P =

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

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

121 Of 2,998 oncologists contacted, 1,490 (49.7%) returned surveys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133 Oncologists' estimates of survival time were relatively

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

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

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

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

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

139 Only radiation oncologists felt that radiation therapy was underutilize

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

141 Most patients were not seen by a surgeon or oncologist for treatment evaluation and only 34% receive

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

143 k integrates these factors to help radiation oncologists formulate strategic treatment recommendation

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

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

146 icians, and medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, from both academic and community settings.

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

148 The combined efforts of oncologists, genetic counselors, and cancer geneticists

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

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

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

152 Cardio-oncologists have identified promising preventive and tre

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

154 Many US oncologists have participated in QOPI over the past 6 ye

155 iative care for patients with breast cancer, oncologists have to find a balance between giving explic

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

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

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

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

160 In addition, oncologist implicit bias indirectly predicted less patie

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

162 We predicted oncologist implicit bias would negatively affect communi

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

164 Oncologist implicit racial bias is negatively associated

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

166 ical record review reported by participating oncologists in 2013.

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

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

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

170 ans (2 dermatologists, 1 Mohs surgeon, and 1 oncologist) in the United States.

171 , hospice, or hospital admissions on medical oncologists' income.

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

173 Two of three oncologists indicated they did not have enough knowledge

174 Oncologists interested in applying NLP for clinical rese

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

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

177 US medical oncologists involved in the care of a population-based c

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

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

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

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

182 Oncologists made a preliminary recommendation for endocr

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

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

185 By developing a strong alliance, oncologists may enhance psychosocial well-being and incr

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

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

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

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

190 y primary care physicians (PCPs) and medical oncologists (MOs) regarding breast and colorectal cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

198 ors will offer expert guidance to practicing oncologists on how to best incorporate newer treatment a

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

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

201 and is best undertaken by specialized ocular oncologists or vitreoretinal surgeons with experience in

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

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

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

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

206 infrastructure, and the scarcity of medical oncologists, pathologists, radiation oncologists, and ot

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

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

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

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

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

212 .2%) of those oncologists, compared with 8.8 oncologists per 100,000 residents and 3.2 (SD, 2.1) netw

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

214 Oncologists perceive many different barriers affecting p

215 d barriers (ie, less psychosocially oriented oncologists perceived more barriers).

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

217 Surgical oncologists placed the least emphasis on chemotherapy in

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

219 xperts representing IASLC, ATS, and ERS with oncologists/pulmonologists, pathologists, radiologists,

220 Oncologists' question prompt list and question asking en

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

228 Oncologists received individualized communication traini

229 Many oncologists recognize that chronological age alone shoul

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

231 Oncologists' recommendations pretest and post-test remai

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

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

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

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

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

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

238 , 2.63; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.02), receipt of an oncologist's advice to consider hospice (OR, 6.09; 95% C

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

240 geted agents continue to be added to the uro-oncologist's armamentarium in the fight against metastat

241 fense mechanisms to evade the effects of the oncologist's drug arsenal.

242 pendent predictors of observed survival were oncologist's estimate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92; P = .00

243 timate was 6%, and three or more times their oncologist's estimate was 14%.

244 s estimate was 63%, </= one quarter of their oncologist's estimate was 6%, and three or more times th

245 th an observed survival half to double their oncologist's estimate was 63%, </= one quarter of their

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 Burnout rates among oncologists seem similar to those described in recent st

250 Oncologists seem to have embraced RPMs (particularly Adj

251 Satisfaction with WLB among US oncologists seems lower than for other medical specialti

252 Given the pending US oncologist shortage, additional studies exploring intera

253 Oncologists should consider discussing CAM with their pa

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

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

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

257 64.5 [11.4] years; 54% female), 161 patient-oncologist survival prognosis ratings (68%; 95% CI, 62%-

258 For those seen by a medical oncologist, the most frequent reason chemotherapy was no

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

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

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

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

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

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

265 dramatically change the ability of clinical oncologists to design new treatment protocols and analyz

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

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

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

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

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

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 dentify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit.

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

277 including prognosis, during their subsequent oncologist visits.

278 Being seen by a surgeon or oncologist was associated with surveillance (adjusted od

279 s performed by general surgeons and surgical oncologists was 48% and 12%, respectively.

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

281 Density level of oncologists was not statistically associated with receip

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

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

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

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

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

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 A substantial proportion of oncologists who are not paid a fixed salary report that

290 Those oncologists who devote the greatest amount of their prof

291 6 patients with advanced cancer and their 38 oncologists who participated in a randomized trial of an

292 Oncologists who reported detailed training about late an

293 terologists, general surgeons, and radiation oncologists who traditionally provide colorectal cancer

294 he population is a real concern for surgical oncologists, who are increasingly being asked to treat p

295 lar communication between dermatologists and oncologists will help facilitate the identification of p

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

297 Oncologists with supplementary education with a psychoso

298 nts during their disease course, challenging oncologists with the task of tailoring therapy for older

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

300 Oncologists worked an average of 57.6 hours per week (AP