Search Results

You are looking at 171 - 180 of 2,671 items for :

  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Stephenie Kennedy-Rea, Adrienne Duckworth, Amy Reasinger Allen, and Samaneh Kalirai

decrease the consequences of treatment. In this analysis, we summarize the program outcomes and provide an economic perspective on implementation and sustainability. The Bridge Program enrolls and assesses patients at the end of cancer treatment using a

Full access

Karen Valdés-Díaz, Halbert Hernández-Negrín, Leonel Valdés-Leiva, Diana Martin-Oliva, and Dianelys Pedraza-González

Background: Comorbidity in elderly has made it difficult to manage when they are affected by aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This has led to the historical achievement of poor outcomes, hence the analysis of the impact of comorbidity in this

Full access

Mohamedtaki A. Tejani, Anna ter Veer, Dana Milne, Rebecca Ottesen, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Al B. Benson III, Deborah Schrag, Stephen Shibata, John Skibber, Martin Weiser, Neal Wilkinson, and Steven J. Cohen

outcome is related primarily to underlying biology or aggressive cytoreduction with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is still debated. The role of modern systemic chemotherapy and targeted therapy in early or advanced nonmucinous and

Full access

Alexandre Hikiji Watanabe, Connor Willis, Melissa Pavilack-Kirker, Clara Lam, Leah Park, Sandhya Mehta, Jackie Kwong, Anindit Chhibber, Hillevi Bauer, Sabrina Ilham, Diana Brixner, and David Stenehjem

in ongoing phase III clinical trials. This study aims to understand the prevalence, current treatment patterns and outcomes of HER2-low patients. Methods : This descriptive study analyzed data from a patient tumor registry in the Huntsman Cancer

Full access

Neal Andruska, Benjamin W. Fischer-Valuck, Ruben Carmona, Temitope Agabalogun, Randall J. Brenneman, Hiram A. Gay, Jeff M. Michalski, and Brian C. Baumann

BT + ADT Relative to EBRT Alone Given the significant potential selection bias for EBRT versus BT, IPTW was used to balance covariables that influenced both treatment allocation and outcomes, and weight-adjusted Cox regression was used to

Full access

Junji Lin, Santosh Gautam, Nan Hu, Debra Wertz, Gboyega Adeboyeje, and Sumesh Kachroo

) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, HCRU and PROs for these pts in community oncology settings. Methods: Retrospective medical records data from adults diagnosed with eSCLC between 1

Full access

Alexandra K. Zaleta, Erica E. Fortune, Melissa F. Miller, Branlyn W. DeRosa, Joanne S. Buzaglo, Karen Hurley, Mitch Golant, Sara Goldberger, Bruce Rapkin, Lillie D. Shockney, Jemeille Ackourey, and Kelly A. Clark

Background: Despite recognition that patient perspectives should inform cancer care, validated measures that meaningfully capture the patient experience across the cancer continuum remain lacking. We developed Valued Outcomes in the Cancer

Full access

Christopher D'Avella, Peter Whooley, Emily Milano, Brian Egleston, Martin Edelman, James Helstrom, Kenneth Patrick, and Jessica Bauman

admissions. Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) developed an urgent care center, the direct referral unit (DRU), in 2012. We sought to characterize the experience of the DRU and its impact on clinical outcomes and utilization. Methods: We abstracted data for

Full access

The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative Coordinating Center and Expert Advisory Panel

smokers at the time of diagnosis. 5 Although compelling data have shown that quitting smoking after a cancer diagnosis leads to better health and quality of life outcomes, a 2009 survey reported that only 38% of NCI Cancer Centers recorded smoking as a

Full access

Krisda H. Chaiyachati, Diana Krause, Jessica Sugalski, Evan M. Graboyes, and Lawrence N. Shulman

widened racial and income disparities in cancer treatment outcomes. 19 – 21 Although national organizations such as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have identified transportation insecurity as a key social risk factor, 22