Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2016
    In:  Journal of Oncology Practice Vol. 12, No. 2 ( 2016-02), p. 170-171
    In: Journal of Oncology Practice, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 12, No. 2 ( 2016-02), p. 170-171
    Abstract: QUESTION ASKED: What is the preferred greeting process (name calling, hand shaking) in oncology practice, by patients, caregivers and medical staff? SUMMARY ANSWER: Findings suggest that patients with cancer in Israel prefer a casual environment that includes calling them by their given name and shaking hands. Yet, they prefer that physicians introduce themselves in a more formal manner, with full name and title. METHODS: A total of 186 patients and 104 caregivers visiting the outpatient clinics at the Davidoff Cancer Institute completed a questionnaire about greeting-related preferences. Similar questionnaires were completed by 93 staff members (physicians, nurses, secretaries, and psychosocial team). BIAS, CONFOUNDING FACTOR(S), DRAWBACKS: First, our attempt to delineate the greeting process is artificial, because a human encounter is much more than just gestures. Also, this was a single-center study, and some of the subgroups were too small to analyze. Last, the answers provided by respondents were not verified by real observations of medical staff–patient meetings. REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS: This survey provides insights that may help oncology professionals in building relationships with their patients. Our findings of patients' preferences and ideas about the desired interactions between them and the medical staff may provide guidance on how to approach patients with cancer. Encounters between patients and medical staff are the foundation for building the patient–medical staff relationship, which is a keystone of cancer care. This survey may facilitate the initiation of such future interactions. [Table: see text]
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1554-7477 , 1935-469X
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 3005549-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2236338-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2023
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 41, No. 4_suppl ( 2023-02-01), p. 254-254
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 41, No. 4_suppl ( 2023-02-01), p. 254-254
    Abstract: 254 Background: Deficient DNA mismatch repair (MMRD) accounts for approximately 3% of metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC). Treatment with Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in this patient population achieve an overall response rate (ORR) of up to 55%. However, to date there are no predictive biomarkers for response. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all MMRD mCRC patients that were treated with either Pembrolizumab, or Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in a large tertiary medical center between 2015-2022. The primary outcome was response to treatment and was assessed at first imaging following treatment initiation. Exposure variables included age, sex, ECOG performance status, metastatic sites (liver, peritoneum, lung, bone and brain) and CEA levels at treatment initiation. CEA below 5 mcg/l was treated as low and above as high CEA levels. Predictive biomarkers were assessed using cox hazard regression and Kaplan Meier analysis. Results: A total of 33 prospective MMRD mCRC patients were included in the study. Of them, 24 (72.7%) responded and 9 (27.3%) did not respond to immunotherapy. Median age was 70 (IQR 66-77) and 64 (IQR 51-75) for responders and non-responders respectively. Site of metastasis was an important predictor for response. Thirteen patients had liver metastasis, of them 6 (46%) responded (HR = 7.16; 95% CI = 1.47-35; p = 0.015). Five patients had single site metastasis in the liver, of them one (20%) responded (HR = 12.7; 95% CI = 2.99-53.8; p 〈 0.001). Fifteen patients had peritoneal metastasis, of them 13 (87%) responded to treatment (HR = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.05-1.19; p = 0.081). Median CEA at treatment initiation was 2 (IQR 1-4) in responders compared to 32 (IQR 1-70) for non-responders (HR = 5.27; 95% CI = 1.31-21.2; p = 0.019). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in age, sex and ECOG performance status. Conclusions: Liver metastasis predict poor response to immunotherapy in MMRD mCRC patients while peritoneal metastasis and low CEA level predict response to immunotherapy.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages