14 research outputs found

    ACR-ARS Practice Parameter on Informed Consent Radiation Oncology

    No full text
    OBJECTIVES: Consent is a communication process between the patient and a health care provider, in which both parties have the opportunity to ask questions and exchange information relevant to the patient\u27s diagnosis and treatment. The process of informed consent is designed to protect a patient\u27s autonomy in their medical decision-making in the context of an asymmetric relationship with the health care system. A proper consent process assures a patient\u27s individual autonomy, reduces the opportunity for abusive conduct or conflicts of interest, and raises trust levels among participants. This document was developed as an educational tool to facilitate these goals. METHODS: This practice parameter was produced according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Committee members were charged with reviewing the prior version of the informed consent practice parameter published in 2017 and recommending additions, modifications, or deletions. The committee met through remote access and subsequently through an online exchange to facilitate the development of the revised document. Focus was given on identifying new considerations and challenges with informed consent given the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology in part driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and other external factors. RESULTS: A review of the practice parameter published in 2017 confirmed the ongoing relevance of recommendations made at that time. In addition, the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology since the publication of the prior document resulted in the need for new topics to be addressed. These topics include remote consent either through telehealth or telephone and with the patient or their health care proxy. CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent is an essential process in the care of radiation oncology patients. This practice parameter serves as an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in optimizing this process for the benefit of all involved parties

    Is palpable DCIS more aggressive than screen-detected DCIS?

    No full text
    Background: Palpable ductal carcinoma in-situ (pDCIS) is a subset of DCIS presenting with a clinical mass. We hypothesized pDCIS would have more aggressive clinical and pathological features, and higher rates of recurrence and upgrade to invasive disease compared to screen-detected DCIS. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of female patients (age 28–76) with DCIS on core-needle biopsy. pDCIS patients had a physician documented palpable mass prior to initial biopsy. Descriptive statistics were performed to compare groups. Results: This study included 83 patients, 26 had pDCIS and 57 had screen-detected DCIS. Mean duration of follow-up was 49.4 months. pDCIS patients had significantly larger lesions (p = 0.03) which were more frequently biopsied via ultrasound (p = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, pDCIS was associated with ultrasound guided core needle biopsy, size of DCIS >2 cm, and comedo pattern (p = 0.001, p = 0.007 and p = 0.022, respectively). 7.7 % of pDCIS cases versus 3.5 % of screen-detected cases were upgraded to invasive cancer (p = 0.59). There was no difference in local recurrence (p = 0.55) between groups. Neither group experienced regional or distant recurrence. Conclusions: pDCIS was associated with some aggressive pathologic and clinical features and was more frequently diagnosed by ultrasound guided core-needle biopsy than screen-detected DCIS. However, there was no significant difference in rate of recurrence or upgrade to invasive disease between groups. Key message: Although pDCIS was associated with some aggressive pathologic and clinical features, there was no significant difference in rate of recurrence or upgrade to invasive disease compared to screen-detected DCIS
    corecore