2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      INTERACTS (INTErventional Radiotherapy ACtive Teaching School) consensus conference on sarcoma interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) endorsed by AIRO (Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology)

      review-article
      , MD, PhD 1 , , MD 2 , , MD 1 , , MD 3 , , MD 4 , , MD 5 , , MD 6 , , MD 7 , , MD 2 , 8 , , MD 9 , , MD, PhD 5 , , MD 10 , , MD, PhD 11 , , MD 12 , , MD, PhD 1 , 5 , , MD 1 , 5 , , MD 13 , , MD 14 , , MD 15 , , MD 12 , Consensus Conference Board *
      Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
      Termedia Publishing House
      interventional radiotherapy, brachytherapy, soft-tissue sarcoma

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To report the results of INTERACTS (INTErventional Radiotherapy ACtive Teaching School) consensus conference on sarcoma interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy).

          Material and methods

          An international board of multidisciplinary experts was invited to a consensus conference on the state-of-the-art of sarcoma interventional oncology during the 9 th Rome INTER-MEETING (INTERventional Radiotherapy Multidisciplinary Meeting), proposing 3 statements for each one speech. At the end of each lecture, the entire group of experts was invited to vote with an electronic device. The preliminary results were presented and discussed at the end of the meeting, during a dedicated session. After the meeting, a survey was distributed within the consensus conference board to share and definitively vote the statements.

          Results

          All the invited authors of the consensus conference board completed the final survey. All the 38 statements received more than 70% of agreement, 31 statements (82%) obtained an agreement of level higher or equal to 90%, 6 statements (15.8%) received an agreement level between 80% and 90%, and 1 statement (2.6%) had less than 80% of agreement.

          Conclusions

          The consensus conference demonstrated that interventional radiotherapy must be considered by a multidisciplinary management of patients affected by sarcoma.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer statistics, 2018

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consensus methods for medical and health services research.

            Health providers face the problem of trying to make decisions in situations where there is insufficient information and also where there is an overload of (often contradictory) information. Statistical methods such as meta-analysis have been developed to summarise and to resolve inconsistencies in study findings--where information is available in an appropriate form. Consensus methods provide another means of synthesising information, but are liable to use a wider range of information than is common in statistical methods, and where published information is inadequate or non-existent these methods provide a means of harnessing the insights of appropriate experts to enable decisions to be made. Two consensus methods commonly adopted in medical, nursing, and health services research--the Delphi process and the nominal group technique (also known as the expert panel)--are described, together with the most appropriate situations for using them; an outline of the process involved in undertaking a study using each method is supplemented by illustrations of the authors' work. Key methodological issues in using the methods are discussed, along with the distinct contribution of consensus methods as aids to decision making, both in clinical practice and in health service development.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Contemp Brachytherapy
                J Contemp Brachytherapy
                JCB
                Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
                Termedia Publishing House
                1689-832X
                2081-2841
                21 August 2020
                August 2020
                : 12
                : 4
                : 397-404
                Affiliations
                [1 ]UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy,
                [2 ]Department of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy,
                [3 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicina e Psicologia, Sant’Andrea Hospital, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy,
                [4 ]Former Deputy Chair of Interventional Radiotherapy AIRO working Group – IntraOperative RadioTherapy, Trieste, Italy,
                [5 ]Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy,
                [6 ]Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgery and Biomedical Science, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy,
                [7 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Santissima Annunziata Hospital, Gabriele D’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy,
                [8 ]Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy,
                [9 ]Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine – DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy,
                [10 ]Foundation Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia (I.V.O.), Valencia, Spain,
                [11 ]Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester and Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom,
                [12 ]Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy,
                [13 ]Radiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma, Italy,
                [14 ]Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino and Department of Health Science, University of Genoa, Italy,
                [15 ]Radiation Oncology Department, Ospedali Civili Hospital and Brescia University, Brescia, Italy
                [* ]Consensus Conference Board: Rosa Autorino (radiation oncologist, Rome), Carmelo Caldarella (nuclear medicine physician, Rome), Annamaria Cerrotta (radiation oncologist, Milan), Antonino De Paoli (radiation oncologist, Aviano), Vitaliana De Sanctis (radiation oncologist, Rome), Nicola Dinapoli (radiation oncologist, Rome), Vittorio Donato (radiation oncologist, Rome), Martina Ferioli (radiation oncologist, Bologna), Vincenzo Fusco (radiation oncologist, Rionero in Vulture), Maria Antonietta Gambacorta (radiation oncologist, Rome), Domenico Genovesi (radiation oncologist, Chieti), Daniela Greto (radiation oncologist, Florence), Jose Luis Guinot (radiation oncologist, València), Roberto Iezzi (interventional radiologist, Rome), Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa (radiation oncologist, Milan), György Kovács (radiation oncologist, Rome and Lübeck), Valentina Lancellotta (radiation oncologist, Rome), Antonio Leone (radiologist, Rome), Giulio Maccauro (orthopedic surgeon, Rome), Stefano Maria Magrini (radiation oncologist, Brescia), Alessio Giuseppe Morganti (radiation oncologist, Bologna), Michela Quirino (medical oncologist, Rome), Agata Rembielak (clinical and radiation oncologist, Manchester), Umberto Ricardi (radiation oncologist, Turin), Vittoria Rufini (nuclear medicine physician, Rome), Giuseppe Sanguineti (radiation oncologist, Rome), Luca Tagliaferri (radiation oncologist, Rome), Andrea Vavassori (radiation oncologist, Milan), Cristiana Vidali (radiation oncologist, Trieste)
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Valentina Lancellotta, MD, UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy, e-mail: valentina.lancellotta@ 123456policlinicogemelli.it
                Article
                41571
                10.5114/jcb.2020.98120
                7690224
                79b407c6-26d5-40d4-a564-5d5146932898
                Copyright © 2020 Termedia

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

                History
                : 11 May 2020
                : 09 July 2020
                Categories
                Review Paper

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                interventional radiotherapy,brachytherapy,soft-tissue sarcoma
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                interventional radiotherapy, brachytherapy, soft-tissue sarcoma

                Comments

                Comment on this article