Oncology

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 1640811 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Ariel E. Hirsch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Medical Student Leadership in the Student Oncology Society: Evaluation of a Student-Run Interest Group
    Journal of Cancer Education, 2021
    Co-Authors: Daniel Huang, Ellen Childs, Akhil V. Uppalapati, Eric C. Tai, Ariel E. Hirsch
    Abstract:

    At our institution, we aim to foster interest in Oncology through the Student Oncology Society (SOS). The SOS was formed in 2010 and since then has hosted numerous Oncology-related events, such as career panels, patient survivorship celebrations, and movie screenings. The purpose of this study is to report the experiences from former student leaders of the SOS, particularly how their participation informed their career choice. Complete survey responses were obtained from 26 of 32 former SOS student leaders (response rate 81.3%). Out of the 26 respondents, 19 (73.1%) are pursuing an Oncology-related specialty. The three most common competencies that were affected by participation in SOS, noted by 21 (80.8%) respondents, were learning about pathways to careers in Oncology, understanding the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, and coordinating events. By mean Likert score, the most important factors in career choice for respondents who eventually pursued an Oncology field were having a mentor in Oncology (4.44), a clinical rotation in Oncology (4.31), research involvement (4.22), and SOS involvement (3.17). While SOS involvement played a role in career choice among our student leaders, having a mentor was cited to be the most important factor for choosing an Oncology career. Thus, implementation of formal mentorship initiatives within the framework of Oncology interest groups should be explored.

  • the impact of a radiation oncologist led Oncology curriculum on medical student knowledge
    Journal of Cancer Education, 2018
    Co-Authors: Ankit Agarwal, Brian Koottappillil, B A Shah, Aishwarya Shah, Ariel E. Hirsch
    Abstract:

    Medical students at our institution all take a pre-clinical Oncology course as well as a clinical radiation Oncology didactic session during their clinical curriculum. The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate the impact of the radiation Oncology didactic on medical student knowledge of core Oncology concepts. All students received a standardized didactic lecture introducing students to core concepts of general Oncology and radiation. We administered an 18-question pretest and a posttest examining student knowledge between 2012 and 2015. Changes in student responses between pre-test and post-tests were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the didactic session. Over the course of three years, 319 (64.4%) of 495 students who completed the Radiology block completed both the pre-test and post-test. The average student test grade improved from 62.0% on the pretest to 69.6% on the posttest (p < 0.001). By category, students increased their score from 81.4% to 89.8% (p < 0.001) in general Oncology, from 59.9% to 69.9% (p < 0.001) in breast Oncology, from 43.0% to 51.0% (p < 0.001) in prostate Oncology, and from 71.3% to 75.7% (p = 0.003) in radiation Oncology. Students showed increases in knowledge across general Oncology, prostate Oncology, breast Oncology, and radiation Oncology.

  • Cultivating Interest in Oncology Through a Medical Student Oncology Society
    Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2015
    Co-Authors: Ankit Agarwal, Aishwarya Shah, Shannon Byler, Ariel E. Hirsch
    Abstract:

    The purpose of this descriptive analysis is to describe a formal method to foster interest in Oncology among medical students through a Student Oncology Society (SOS). The SOS is a student-run multidisciplinary interest group that offers Oncology-related events to interested medical students at the Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM). We employed a student survey to document the impact of the SOS on student interest in careers in Oncology and students’ perceived accessibility of mentors in Oncology at our institution. All 35 students who attended the event reported that they found the discussion panels “valuable” or “somewhat valuable.” A minority of students reported that student and faculty were “somewhat accessible” or “very accessible.” At the end of the survey, 37 % of the students reported that a discussion of career paths of various physicians or a student/resident panel on Oncology would be beneficial. By giving students an opportunity to learn about the different medical and surgical specialties within Oncology, the SOS is able to cultivate early interest and understanding of the field of Oncology among pre-clinical medical students. Further work must be done to connect medical students to faculty mentors in Oncology. Although this short report provides a model for other medical schools to begin their own student Oncology interest groups, further rigorous evaluation of pre-clinical Oncology education initiatives are necessary in order to document their long-term impact on medical education.

  • medical student reported outcomes of a radiation oncologist led preclinical course in Oncology a five year analysis
    International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2015
    Co-Authors: Ankit Agarwal, Brian Koottappillil, B A Shah, Divya Ahuja, Ariel E. Hirsch
    Abstract:

    Purpose There is a recognized need for more robust training in Oncology for medical students. At our institution, we have offered a core dedicated Oncology block, led by a radiation oncologist course director, during the second year of the medical school curriculum since the 2008-2009 academic year. Herein, we report the outcomes of the Oncology block over the past 5 years through an analysis of student perceptions of the course, both immediately after completion of the block and in the third year. Methods and Materials We analyzed 2 separate surveys. The first assessed student impressions of how well the course met each of the course's learning objectives through a survey that was administered to students immediately after the Oncology block in 2012. The second was administered after students completed the Oncology block during the required radiology clerkship in the third year. All questions used a 5-level Likert scale and were analyzed by use of a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results Of the 169 students who took the Oncology course in 2012, 127 (75.1%) completed the course feedback survey. Over 73% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the course met its 3 learning objectives. Of the 699 medical students who took the required radiology clerkship between 2010 and 2013, 538 participated in the second survey, for a total response rate of 77%. Of these students, 368 (68.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the course was effective in contributing to their overall medical education. Conclusion Student perceptions of the Oncology block are favorable and have improved across multiple categories since the inception of the course. Students self-reported that a dedicated preclinical Oncology block was effective in helping identify the basics of cancer therapy and laying the foundation for clinical electives in Oncology, including radiation Oncology.

  • Quantitatively and Qualitatively Augmenting Medical Student Knowledge of Oncology and Radiation Oncology: An Update on the Impact of the Oncology Education Initiative
    Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2012
    Co-Authors: Ariel E. Hirsch, Roxane Handal, Janeen Daniels, Rebecca Levin-epstein, Nicholas J. Denunzio, Johanne E. Dillon, Kitt Shaffer, Pauline Mulleady Bishop
    Abstract:

    The Oncology Education Initiative was established in 2007 in an effort to advance Oncology and radiation Oncology education at the undergraduate level. As a continuation of the initiative, the aim of this study was to determine whether these structured didactics would continue to increase overall medical student knowledge about oncologic topics. Preclerkship and postclerkship tests examining concepts in general Oncology, radiation Oncology, breast cancer, and prostate cancer were administered. The 21-question, multiple-choice examination was administered at the beginning and end of the radiology clerkship, during which a 1.5-hour didactic session was given by an attending radiation oncologist. Changes in individual question responses, student responses, and overall categorical responses were analyzed. All hypothesis tests were two tailed with a significance level of .05. In the 2009-2010 academic year, 155 third-year and fourth-year students had average examination score improvements from 62% to 68.9% (P < .0001). Every topic (100%) showed improvement in scores, with the largest absolute improvement seen in the radiation Oncology category, which increased from 56.5% to 71.8% (P < .0001). As the year proceeded, average examination scores increased among third-year students and decreased among fourth-year students. In the successive years since its inception, the Oncology Education Initiative continues to show a significant improvement in medical students' knowledge of cancer. The initiative has also succeeded in providing radiation Oncology education to all graduating medical students at the authors' institution. Dedicated Oncology education in the undergraduate medical curriculum provides students with a better understanding of multidisciplinary Oncology management. Copyright © 2012 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Curtiland Deville - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • female representation in the academic Oncology physician workforce radiation Oncology losing ground to hematology Oncology
    International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2017
    Co-Authors: Awad A Ahmed, Weiting Hwang, Emma B Holliday, C H Chapman, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R Thomas, Curtiland Deville
    Abstract:

    Purpose Our purpose was to assess comparative female representation trends for trainees and full-time faculty in the academic radiation Oncology and hematology Oncology workforce of the United States over 3 decades. Methods and Materials Simple linear regression models with year as the independent variable were used to determine changes in female percentage representation per year and associated 95% confidence intervals for trainees and full-time faculty in each specialty. Results Peak representation was 48.4% (801/1654) in 2013 for hematology Oncology trainees, 39.0% (585/1499) in 2014 for hematology Oncology full-time faculty, 34.8% (202/581) in 2007 for radiation Oncology trainees, and 27.7% (439/1584) in 2015 for radiation Oncology full-time faculty. Representation significantly increased for trainees and full-time faculty in both specialties at approximately 1% per year for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty and 0.3% per year for radiation Oncology trainees and full-time faculty. Compared with radiation Oncology, the rates were 3.84 and 2.94 times greater for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty, respectively. Conclusion Despite increased female trainee and full-time faculty representation over time in the academic Oncology physician workforce, radiation Oncology is lagging behind hematology Oncology, with trainees declining in recent years in radiation Oncology; this suggests a de facto ceiling in female representation. Whether such issues as delayed or insufficient exposure, inadequate mentorship, or specialty competitiveness disparately affect female representation in radiation Oncology compared to hematology Oncology are underexplored and require continued investigation to ensure that the future oncologic physician workforce reflects the diversity of the population it serves.

  • Female Representation in the Academic Oncology Physician Workforce: Radiation Oncology Losing Ground to Hematology Oncology.
    International journal of radiation oncology biology physics, 2017
    Co-Authors: Awad A Ahmed, Weiting Hwang, Emma B Holliday, C H Chapman, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R Thomas, Curtiland Deville
    Abstract:

    Our purpose was to assess comparative female representation trends for trainees and full-time faculty in the academic radiation Oncology and hematology Oncology workforce of the United States over 3 decades. Simple linear regression models with year as the independent variable were used to determine changes in female percentage representation per year and associated 95% confidence intervals for trainees and full-time faculty in each specialty. Peak representation was 48.4% (801/1654) in 2013 for hematology Oncology trainees, 39.0% (585/1499) in 2014 for hematology Oncology full-time faculty, 34.8% (202/581) in 2007 for radiation Oncology trainees, and 27.7% (439/1584) in 2015 for radiation Oncology full-time faculty. Representation significantly increased for trainees and full-time faculty in both specialties at approximately 1% per year for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty and 0.3% per year for radiation Oncology trainees and full-time faculty. Compared with radiation Oncology, the rates were 3.84 and 2.94 times greater for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty, respectively. Despite increased female trainee and full-time faculty representation over time in the academic Oncology physician workforce, radiation Oncology is lagging behind hematology Oncology, with trainees declining in recent years in radiation Oncology; this suggests a de facto ceiling in female representation. Whether such issues as delayed or insufficient exposure, inadequate mentorship, or specialty competitiveness disparately affect female representation in radiation Oncology compared to hematology Oncology are underexplored and require continued investigation to ensure that the future oncologic physician workforce reflects the diversity of the population it serves. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Awad A Ahmed - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • female representation in the academic Oncology physician workforce radiation Oncology losing ground to hematology Oncology
    International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2017
    Co-Authors: Awad A Ahmed, Weiting Hwang, Emma B Holliday, C H Chapman, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R Thomas, Curtiland Deville
    Abstract:

    Purpose Our purpose was to assess comparative female representation trends for trainees and full-time faculty in the academic radiation Oncology and hematology Oncology workforce of the United States over 3 decades. Methods and Materials Simple linear regression models with year as the independent variable were used to determine changes in female percentage representation per year and associated 95% confidence intervals for trainees and full-time faculty in each specialty. Results Peak representation was 48.4% (801/1654) in 2013 for hematology Oncology trainees, 39.0% (585/1499) in 2014 for hematology Oncology full-time faculty, 34.8% (202/581) in 2007 for radiation Oncology trainees, and 27.7% (439/1584) in 2015 for radiation Oncology full-time faculty. Representation significantly increased for trainees and full-time faculty in both specialties at approximately 1% per year for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty and 0.3% per year for radiation Oncology trainees and full-time faculty. Compared with radiation Oncology, the rates were 3.84 and 2.94 times greater for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty, respectively. Conclusion Despite increased female trainee and full-time faculty representation over time in the academic Oncology physician workforce, radiation Oncology is lagging behind hematology Oncology, with trainees declining in recent years in radiation Oncology; this suggests a de facto ceiling in female representation. Whether such issues as delayed or insufficient exposure, inadequate mentorship, or specialty competitiveness disparately affect female representation in radiation Oncology compared to hematology Oncology are underexplored and require continued investigation to ensure that the future oncologic physician workforce reflects the diversity of the population it serves.

  • Female Representation in the Academic Oncology Physician Workforce: Radiation Oncology Losing Ground to Hematology Oncology.
    International journal of radiation oncology biology physics, 2017
    Co-Authors: Awad A Ahmed, Weiting Hwang, Emma B Holliday, C H Chapman, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R Thomas, Curtiland Deville
    Abstract:

    Our purpose was to assess comparative female representation trends for trainees and full-time faculty in the academic radiation Oncology and hematology Oncology workforce of the United States over 3 decades. Simple linear regression models with year as the independent variable were used to determine changes in female percentage representation per year and associated 95% confidence intervals for trainees and full-time faculty in each specialty. Peak representation was 48.4% (801/1654) in 2013 for hematology Oncology trainees, 39.0% (585/1499) in 2014 for hematology Oncology full-time faculty, 34.8% (202/581) in 2007 for radiation Oncology trainees, and 27.7% (439/1584) in 2015 for radiation Oncology full-time faculty. Representation significantly increased for trainees and full-time faculty in both specialties at approximately 1% per year for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty and 0.3% per year for radiation Oncology trainees and full-time faculty. Compared with radiation Oncology, the rates were 3.84 and 2.94 times greater for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty, respectively. Despite increased female trainee and full-time faculty representation over time in the academic Oncology physician workforce, radiation Oncology is lagging behind hematology Oncology, with trainees declining in recent years in radiation Oncology; this suggests a de facto ceiling in female representation. Whether such issues as delayed or insufficient exposure, inadequate mentorship, or specialty competitiveness disparately affect female representation in radiation Oncology compared to hematology Oncology are underexplored and require continued investigation to ensure that the future oncologic physician workforce reflects the diversity of the population it serves. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Ankit Agarwal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the impact of a radiation oncologist led Oncology curriculum on medical student knowledge
    Journal of Cancer Education, 2018
    Co-Authors: Ankit Agarwal, Brian Koottappillil, B A Shah, Aishwarya Shah, Ariel E. Hirsch
    Abstract:

    Medical students at our institution all take a pre-clinical Oncology course as well as a clinical radiation Oncology didactic session during their clinical curriculum. The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate the impact of the radiation Oncology didactic on medical student knowledge of core Oncology concepts. All students received a standardized didactic lecture introducing students to core concepts of general Oncology and radiation. We administered an 18-question pretest and a posttest examining student knowledge between 2012 and 2015. Changes in student responses between pre-test and post-tests were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the didactic session. Over the course of three years, 319 (64.4%) of 495 students who completed the Radiology block completed both the pre-test and post-test. The average student test grade improved from 62.0% on the pretest to 69.6% on the posttest (p < 0.001). By category, students increased their score from 81.4% to 89.8% (p < 0.001) in general Oncology, from 59.9% to 69.9% (p < 0.001) in breast Oncology, from 43.0% to 51.0% (p < 0.001) in prostate Oncology, and from 71.3% to 75.7% (p = 0.003) in radiation Oncology. Students showed increases in knowledge across general Oncology, prostate Oncology, breast Oncology, and radiation Oncology.

  • Cultivating Interest in Oncology Through a Medical Student Oncology Society
    Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2015
    Co-Authors: Ankit Agarwal, Aishwarya Shah, Shannon Byler, Ariel E. Hirsch
    Abstract:

    The purpose of this descriptive analysis is to describe a formal method to foster interest in Oncology among medical students through a Student Oncology Society (SOS). The SOS is a student-run multidisciplinary interest group that offers Oncology-related events to interested medical students at the Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM). We employed a student survey to document the impact of the SOS on student interest in careers in Oncology and students’ perceived accessibility of mentors in Oncology at our institution. All 35 students who attended the event reported that they found the discussion panels “valuable” or “somewhat valuable.” A minority of students reported that student and faculty were “somewhat accessible” or “very accessible.” At the end of the survey, 37 % of the students reported that a discussion of career paths of various physicians or a student/resident panel on Oncology would be beneficial. By giving students an opportunity to learn about the different medical and surgical specialties within Oncology, the SOS is able to cultivate early interest and understanding of the field of Oncology among pre-clinical medical students. Further work must be done to connect medical students to faculty mentors in Oncology. Although this short report provides a model for other medical schools to begin their own student Oncology interest groups, further rigorous evaluation of pre-clinical Oncology education initiatives are necessary in order to document their long-term impact on medical education.

  • medical student reported outcomes of a radiation oncologist led preclinical course in Oncology a five year analysis
    International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2015
    Co-Authors: Ankit Agarwal, Brian Koottappillil, B A Shah, Divya Ahuja, Ariel E. Hirsch
    Abstract:

    Purpose There is a recognized need for more robust training in Oncology for medical students. At our institution, we have offered a core dedicated Oncology block, led by a radiation oncologist course director, during the second year of the medical school curriculum since the 2008-2009 academic year. Herein, we report the outcomes of the Oncology block over the past 5 years through an analysis of student perceptions of the course, both immediately after completion of the block and in the third year. Methods and Materials We analyzed 2 separate surveys. The first assessed student impressions of how well the course met each of the course's learning objectives through a survey that was administered to students immediately after the Oncology block in 2012. The second was administered after students completed the Oncology block during the required radiology clerkship in the third year. All questions used a 5-level Likert scale and were analyzed by use of a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results Of the 169 students who took the Oncology course in 2012, 127 (75.1%) completed the course feedback survey. Over 73% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the course met its 3 learning objectives. Of the 699 medical students who took the required radiology clerkship between 2010 and 2013, 538 participated in the second survey, for a total response rate of 77%. Of these students, 368 (68.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the course was effective in contributing to their overall medical education. Conclusion Student perceptions of the Oncology block are favorable and have improved across multiple categories since the inception of the course. Students self-reported that a dedicated preclinical Oncology block was effective in helping identify the basics of cancer therapy and laying the foundation for clinical electives in Oncology, including radiation Oncology.

Weiting Hwang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • female representation in the academic Oncology physician workforce radiation Oncology losing ground to hematology Oncology
    International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2017
    Co-Authors: Awad A Ahmed, Weiting Hwang, Emma B Holliday, C H Chapman, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R Thomas, Curtiland Deville
    Abstract:

    Purpose Our purpose was to assess comparative female representation trends for trainees and full-time faculty in the academic radiation Oncology and hematology Oncology workforce of the United States over 3 decades. Methods and Materials Simple linear regression models with year as the independent variable were used to determine changes in female percentage representation per year and associated 95% confidence intervals for trainees and full-time faculty in each specialty. Results Peak representation was 48.4% (801/1654) in 2013 for hematology Oncology trainees, 39.0% (585/1499) in 2014 for hematology Oncology full-time faculty, 34.8% (202/581) in 2007 for radiation Oncology trainees, and 27.7% (439/1584) in 2015 for radiation Oncology full-time faculty. Representation significantly increased for trainees and full-time faculty in both specialties at approximately 1% per year for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty and 0.3% per year for radiation Oncology trainees and full-time faculty. Compared with radiation Oncology, the rates were 3.84 and 2.94 times greater for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty, respectively. Conclusion Despite increased female trainee and full-time faculty representation over time in the academic Oncology physician workforce, radiation Oncology is lagging behind hematology Oncology, with trainees declining in recent years in radiation Oncology; this suggests a de facto ceiling in female representation. Whether such issues as delayed or insufficient exposure, inadequate mentorship, or specialty competitiveness disparately affect female representation in radiation Oncology compared to hematology Oncology are underexplored and require continued investigation to ensure that the future oncologic physician workforce reflects the diversity of the population it serves.

  • Female Representation in the Academic Oncology Physician Workforce: Radiation Oncology Losing Ground to Hematology Oncology.
    International journal of radiation oncology biology physics, 2017
    Co-Authors: Awad A Ahmed, Weiting Hwang, Emma B Holliday, C H Chapman, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R Thomas, Curtiland Deville
    Abstract:

    Our purpose was to assess comparative female representation trends for trainees and full-time faculty in the academic radiation Oncology and hematology Oncology workforce of the United States over 3 decades. Simple linear regression models with year as the independent variable were used to determine changes in female percentage representation per year and associated 95% confidence intervals for trainees and full-time faculty in each specialty. Peak representation was 48.4% (801/1654) in 2013 for hematology Oncology trainees, 39.0% (585/1499) in 2014 for hematology Oncology full-time faculty, 34.8% (202/581) in 2007 for radiation Oncology trainees, and 27.7% (439/1584) in 2015 for radiation Oncology full-time faculty. Representation significantly increased for trainees and full-time faculty in both specialties at approximately 1% per year for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty and 0.3% per year for radiation Oncology trainees and full-time faculty. Compared with radiation Oncology, the rates were 3.84 and 2.94 times greater for hematology Oncology trainees and full-time faculty, respectively. Despite increased female trainee and full-time faculty representation over time in the academic Oncology physician workforce, radiation Oncology is lagging behind hematology Oncology, with trainees declining in recent years in radiation Oncology; this suggests a de facto ceiling in female representation. Whether such issues as delayed or insufficient exposure, inadequate mentorship, or specialty competitiveness disparately affect female representation in radiation Oncology compared to hematology Oncology are underexplored and require continued investigation to ensure that the future oncologic physician workforce reflects the diversity of the population it serves. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.