Esophageal Cancer Practice Guidelines in Japan

2020 ◽  
pp. 131-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eisuke Booka ◽  
Hiroya Takeuchi ◽  
Yuko Kitagawa
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Practice Guidelines

Esophageal Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Clinical Presentation ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Pathologic Staging ◽  
Recent Version

This article summarizes the NCCN clinical practice guidelines for managing esophageal cancer. The guidelines begin with the clinical presentation of the patient to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist and address diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, adjuvant treatment, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and patient surveillance. For the most recent version of the guidelines, please visit NCCN.org

scholarly journals Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2017 edited by the Japan esophageal society: part 2

Esophagus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuko Kitagawa ◽  
Takashi Uno ◽  
Tsuneo Oyama ◽  
Ken Kato ◽  
Hiroyuki Kato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Japan Esophageal Society

scholarly journals Esophageal cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. v46-v49 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Stahl ◽  
W. Budach ◽  
H.-J. Meyer ◽  
A. Cervantes
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines

Re: Practice Guidelines for Esophageal Cancer

1999 ◽  
Vol 94 (8) ◽  
pp. 2319-2320 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Santhi Swaroop
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Practice Guidelines

scholarly journals Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2017 edited by the Japan Esophageal Society: part 1

Esophagus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuko Kitagawa ◽  
Takashi Uno ◽  
Tsuneo Oyama ◽  
Ken Kato ◽  
Hiroyuki Kato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Japan Esophageal Society

High Flow Oxygen Therapy and the Pressure to Feed Infants With Acute Respiratory Illness

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 1006-1010
Author(s):  
Jennifer Raminick ◽  
Hema Desai
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Respiratory Illness ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Oral Feeding ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Acute Respiratory Illness ◽  
High Flow Oxygen

Purpose Infants hospitalized for an acute respiratory illness often require the use of noninvasive respiratory support during the initial stage to improve their breathing. High flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) is becoming a more popular means of noninvasive respiratory support, often used to treat respiratory syncytial virus/bronchiolitis. These infants present with tachypnea and coughing, resulting in difficulties in coordinating sucking and swallowing. However, they are often allowed to feed orally despite having high respiratory rate, increased work of breathing and on HFOT, placing them at risk for aspiration. Feeding therapists who work with these infants have raised concerns that HFOT creates an additional risk factor for swallowing dysfunction, especially with infants who have compromised airways or other comorbidities. There is emerging literature concluding changes in pharyngeal pressures with HFOT, as well as aspiration in preterm neonates who are on nasal continuous positive airway pressure. However, there is no existing research exploring the effect of HFOT on swallowing in infants with acute respiratory illness. This discussion will present findings from literature on HFOT, oral feeding in the acutely ill infant population, and present clinical practice guidelines for safe feeding during critical care admission for acute respiratory illness. Conclusion Guidelines for safety of oral feeds for infants with acute respiratory illness on HFOT do not exist. However, providers and parents continue to want to provide oral feeds despite clinical signs of respiratory distress and coughing. To address this challenge, we initiated a process change to use clinical bedside evaluation and a “cross-systems approach” to provide recommendations for safer oral feeds while on HFOT as the infant is recovering from illness. Use of standardized feeding evaluation and protocol have improved consistency of practice within our department. However, further research is still necessary to develop clinical practice guidelines for safe oral feeding for infants on HFOT.

School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Adherence to Practice Guidelines for Assessment of English Learners

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Virginia L. Dubasik ◽  
Dubravka Svetina Valdivia
Keyword(s):  
Professional Practice ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Case History ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Dynamic Assessment ◽  
Federal Legislation ◽  
Assessment Practices ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
School Based

Purpose The purpose of this study was to ascertain the extent to which school-based speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) assessment practices with individual English learners (ELs) align with federal legislation and professional practice guidelines. Specifically, we were interested in examining SLPs' use of multiple tools during individual EL assessments, as well as relationships between practices and number of types of training experiences. Method School-based SLPs in a Midwestern state were recruited in person or via e-mail to complete an online survey pertaining to assessment. Of the 562 respondents who completed the survey, 222 (39.5%) indicated past or present experience with ELs, and thus, their data were included in the analyses. The questionnaire solicited information about respondent's demographics, caseload composition, perceived knowledge and skills and training experiences pertaining to working with ELs (e.g., graduate school, self-teaching, professional conferences), and assessment practices used in schools. Results The majority of respondents reported using multiple tools rather than a single tool with each EL they assess. Case history and observation were tools used often or always by the largest number of participants. SLPs who used multiple tools reported using both direct (e.g., standardized tests, dynamic assessment) and indirect tools (e.g., case history, interviews). Analyses revealed low to moderate positive associations between tools, as well as the use of speech-language samples and number of types of training experiences. Conclusions School-based SLPs in the current study reported using EL assessment practices that comply with federal legislation and professional practice guidelines for EL assessment. These results enhance our understanding of school-based SLPs' assessment practices with ELs and may be indicative of a positive shift toward evidence-based practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document