Medical oncology manpower training: a position statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1986 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
B J Kennedy ◽  
P Calabresi ◽  
B Clarkson ◽  
E Frenkel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Long Range Planning ◽  
American Society

The evolution of Medical Oncology is facing its first major crisis, that of oversupply of trained oncologists. The tabulated number of certified medical oncologists does not constitute all of the physicians practicing Medical Oncology in the United States. Because of the adequate supply of medical oncologists in clinical practice, but a deficiency of academic oncologists dedicated to research careers, a reduction in training programs should emphasize those programs that lack research opportunities. These recommendations are in keeping with the report of the Long-Range Planning Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology of March 21, 1984. Plans to expedite these goals are being established.

Status of the medical oncology workforce. The American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 2612-2621 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Full Time Equivalent ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
American Society

PURPOSE A survey was designed to determine accurately the number of full-time equivalent medical oncologists in the United States, to determine how medical oncologists in different work settings divide their professional activities, and to determine whether medical oncology represents a primary care specialty in the minds of practicing oncologists. METHODS A questionnaire was mailed to the 4,239 members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) who identified themselves as medical oncologists or hematologists/oncologists and were current residents of the United States. Follow-up letters, which included a second copy of the questionnaire, were sent to nonresponders. A third mailing, followed by a telephone reminder, was sent to a randomly selected subset of 300 nonresponders to be certain that the initial responders were similar in practice patterns and attitudes to those individuals who had not initially completed the survey. RESULTS A total of 2,540 physicians responded to the first mailing and an additional 187 to the second (64% response rate); a further 196 individuals who were directly contacted completed the survey document. Practitioners appear to see 160 to 200 different patients per month and to devote approximately 72% of their time to patient care activities. Research and teaching comprised only 3% to 4% of professional time for physicians in private practice or Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) settings, in contrast to 16% for those who worked in community hospitals. Medical oncologists frequently serve the role of principal care giver while patients are undergoing cancer treatment. However, medical oncologists devote minimal time providing primary care services to patients and, if required to increase their clinical volume, would prefer to care for more cancer patients than enhance their primary care activities. It is estimated that the present full-time equivalent number (ie, the conglomorate number of oncologists based on 100% professional effort devoted to clinical care) of medical oncologists is approximately 3,600 individuals. This translates into 1.8 medical oncologists per 100,000 adult Americans. CONCLUSION The medical oncology community devotes the majority of its time to providing oncologic patient care and does not provide or appear to wish to provide what the public defines as primary care. The survey estimate of 1.8 medical oncologists per 100,000 adult Americans is in close accord with HMO estimates of the number of desired oncologists. Consequently, the supply appears consistent with the anticipated demand. There does not appear to be an oversupply of medical oncologists in the United States.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidance Statement: The Cost of Cancer Care

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (23) ◽  
pp. 3868-3874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal J. Meropol ◽  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Therese M. Mulvey ◽  
Robert M. Langdon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
High Quality ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Cost

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.

scholarly journals Kształcenie policjantów w Stanach Zjednoczonych (wybrane podejścia i tendencje)

1970 ◽  
pp. 227-235
Author(s):  
Wojciech Andraszczyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Operating System ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Police Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ways Of Thinking ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Police ◽  
Historical Origins

The article reconstructs selected contexts of police training in the United States of America. The narration concentrates on the historical origins of police training as well as on the dominant relevant trends in presentday American society. Furthermore, the paper seeks to compare the two ways of thinking about police training which influencethe training programs in police academies. The author presents methods of shaping the identity of policemen, the firstof which is a military model and the second one is an academic model. The text focuses moreover on the evolution of the operating system of the American police: from intervention-oriented to a community-oriented model, which is constantly gaining importance in some police training programs.

What Can We Do About It?

2018 ◽  
pp. 158-208
Author(s):  
Nicholas Carnes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Working Class ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Society ◽  
Democratic Elections ◽  
Seed Money

This chapter uses what has been learned about America's cash ceiling in the previous chapters to sort through the various reform proposals that observers have floated throughout the years. Some are essentially pipe dreams: they would work, but they are completely infeasible (like quotas for working-class politicians or replacing democratic elections in the United States with government by lottery). Others are long shots, ideas that would probably help, but would take decades to execute and would require massive changes to American society. The interventions that seem to have the most promise are reforms that specifically target working-class people and directly address the resource and recruitment gaps that elections naturally create—reforms like political scholarships, seed money programs, and candidate training programs.

scholarly journals American Society of Clinical Oncology Position Statement on Obesity and Cancer

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31) ◽  
pp. 3568-3574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Ligibel ◽  
Catherine M. Alfano ◽  
Kerry S. Courneya ◽  
Wendy Demark-Wahnefried ◽  
Robert A. Burger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Lifestyle Changes ◽  
Lifestyle Behaviors ◽  
American Society ◽  
Obesity And Cancer ◽  
The Impact

Rates of obesity have increased significantly over the last three decades in the United States and globally. In addition to contributing to heart disease and diabetes, obesity is a major unrecognized risk factor for cancer. Obesity is associated with worsened prognosis after cancer diagnosis and also negatively affects the delivery of systemic therapy, contributes to morbidity of cancer treatment, and may raise the risk of second malignancies and comorbidities. Research shows that the time after a cancer diagnosis can serve as a teachable moment to motivate individuals to adopt risk-reducing behaviors. For this reason, the oncology care team—the providers with whom a patient has the closest relationships in the critical period after a cancer diagnosis—is in a unique position to help patients lose weight and make other healthy lifestyle changes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology is committed to reducing the impact of obesity on cancer and has established a multipronged initiative to accomplish this goal by 1) increasing education and awareness of the evidence linking obesity and cancer; 2) providing tools and resources to help oncology providers address obesity with their patients; 3) building and fostering a robust research agenda to better understand the pathophysiology of energy balance alterations, evaluate the impact of behavior change on cancer outcomes, and determine the best methods to help cancer survivors make effective and useful changes in lifestyle behaviors; and 4) advocating for policy and systems change to address societal factors contributing to obesity and improve access to weight management services for patients with cancer.

Clinical Cancer Advances 2010: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer From the American Society of Clinical Oncology

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (36) ◽  
pp. 5327-5347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark G. Kris ◽  
Steven I. Benowitz ◽  
Sylvia Adams ◽  
Lisa Diller ◽  
Patricia Ganz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Research ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cooperative Group ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Group Program ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Right

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO'S PRESIDENT Like many health professionals who care for people with cancer, I entered the field because of specific patients who touched my heart. They still do. In an effort to weave together my personal view of what the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) stands for and the purpose the organization serves, my presidential theme this year is “Patients. Pathways. Progress.” Patients come first. Caring for patients is the most important, rewarding aspect of being an oncology professional. At its best, the relationship between doctor and patient is compassionate and honest—and a relationship of mutual respect. Many professional organizations have an interest in cancer, but no other society is so focused on the entire spectrum of cancer care, education, and research. Nor is any other society as particularly interested in bringing new treatments to our patients through clinical trials as ASCO is. Clinical trials are the crux for improving treatments for people with cancer and are critical for continued progress against the disease. “Pathways” has several meanings. Some pathways are molecular—like the cancer cell's machinery of destruction, which we have only begun to understand in recent years. But there are other equally important pathways, including the pathways new therapies follow as they move from bench to bedside and the pathways patients follow during the course of their diseases. Improved understanding of these pathways will lead to new approaches in cancer care, allowing doctors to provide targeted therapies that deliver improved, personalized treatment. The best pathway for patients to gain access to new therapies is through clinical trials. Trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Program, a nationwide network of cancer centers and physicians, represent the United States' most important pathway for accelerating progress against cancer. This year, the Institute of Medicine released a report on major challenges facing the Cooperative Group Program. Chief among them is the fact that funding for the program has been nearly flat since 2002. ASCO has called for a doubling of funding for cooperative group research within five years and supports the full implementation of the Institute of Medicine recommendations to revitalize the program. ASCO harnesses the expertise and resources of its 28,000 members to bring all of these pathways together for the greater good of patients. Progress against cancer is being made every day—measurable both in our improved understanding of the disease and in our ability to treat it. A report issued in December 2009 by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries found that rates of new diagnoses and rates of death resulting from all cancers combined have declined significantly in recent years for men and women overall and for most racial and ethnic populations in the United States. The pace of progress can be and needs to be hastened. Much remains to be done. Sustained national investment in cancer research is needed to bring better, more effective, less toxic treatments to people living with cancer. Pathways to progress continue in the clinic as doctors strive to find the right treatments for the right patients, to understand what represents the right treatments, and to partner with patients and caregivers for access to those treatments. This report demonstrates that significant progress is being made on the front lines of clinical cancer research. But although our nation's investment in this research is paying off, we must never forget the magnitude of what lies ahead. Cancer remains the number two killer of Americans. Future progress depends on continued commitment, from both ASCO and the larger medical community. George W. Sledge Jr, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology

Clinical Cancer Advances 2012: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer From the American Society of Clinical Oncology

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Roth ◽  
Lada Krilov ◽  
Sylvia Adams ◽  
Carol A. Aghajanian ◽  
Peter Bach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Research ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Molecular Characteristics ◽  
Clinical Cancer ◽  
American Society

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO'S PRESIDENTI am delighted to present you with “Clinical Cancer Advances 2012: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer From the American Society of Clinical Oncology.” The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) uses this opportunity each year to share the steady progress occurring in our understanding and treatment of cancer. For 2012, we offer again an inspiring perspective on clinical cancer advances over the past year, but with a cautionary note: if current threats to federal funding materialize, future progress in cancer research will be seriously undermined.Continued progress against cancer. As you read the following pages of this report, I hope you will share my unabashed enthusiasm—and pride—in how far we have come. To appreciate what this progress has meant to the millions of people who receive a cancer diagnosis each year, consider the following: (1) two of three people in the United States live at least 5 years after a cancer diagnosis (up from roughly one of two in the 1970s); (2) the nation's cancer death rate has dropped 18% since the early 1990s, reversing decades of increases; and (3) individuals with cancer are increasingly able to live active, fulfilling lives because of better management of symptoms and treatments with fewer adverse effects.Importance of clinical cancer trials. These dramatic trends—and the advances highlighted in this report—would have been unthinkable without the engine that drives life-saving cancer treatment: clinical cancer research. Advances in technology and in our knowledge of how patient-specific molecular characteristics of the tumor and its environment fuel the growth of cancer have brought new hope to patients. Clinical trials are the key to translating cutting-edge laboratory discoveries into treatments that extend and improve the lives of those with cancer.But progress is only part of the story. Cancer remains a challenge, with many cancers undetected until their latest stages and others resisting most attempts at treatment. Tragically, cancer still kills more than 500,000 people in the United States every year, and its global burden is growing rapidly.Bridges to better care. To conquer cancer, we need to build bridges to the future—bridges that will get scientific advances to the patient's bedside quicker, bridges that will enable us to share information and learn what works in real time, and bridges that will improve care for all patients around the world.At ASCO, we recognize the unique role that oncologists must play. ASCO's “Accelerating Progress Against Cancer: Blueprint for Transforming Clinical and Translational Cancer Research,”1published last year, presents our vision and recommendations to make cancer research and patient care vastly more targeted, more efficient, and more effective. We have also launched a groundbreaking initiative, CancerLinQ, that aims to improve cancer care and speed research by drawing insights from the vast pool of data on patients in real-world settings.Renewing a national commitment to cancer research. We are on the threshold of major advances in cancer prevention, detection, and treatment—but only if, as a nation, we remain committed to this critical endeavor.The federally funded cancer research system is currently under threat by larger federal budget concerns. Clearly, Congress faces a complex budget environment, but now is not the time to retreat from our nation's commitment to conquering a disease that affects nearly all of us. Bold action must be taken to ensure that we can take full advantage of today's scientific and technologic opportunities.Please join me in celebrating our nation's progress against cancer and in recommitting ourselves to supporting cancer research. Millions of lives depend on it.Sandra M. Swain, MDPresidentAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology

Representation trends in radiation oncology training programs in the United States.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11043-11043
Author(s):  
Emilie Garcia ◽  
Jacob Lang ◽  
Oluchi Ukaegbu Oke ◽  
Krishna Reddy ◽  
Obi Ekwenna
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Native American ◽  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Data Resource

11043 Background: The ASCO and American Society of Radiation Oncologists (ASTRO) have recently committed to initiatives on increasing URM representation in the radiation oncology workforce. This study aims to assess representation trends in radiation oncology training programs across five academic years in order to understand representation trends and better guide initiatives moving forward. Methods: Data on racial and ethnic representation from the ACGME Data Resource Books over a span of five academic years (2015-2020) was included. URM was defined as those who identified as Hispanic, Black, or Native American/Alaskan in concordance with AAMC definition. Chi square testing was used to compare the proportion of residency positions occupied by URM residents by self-identified race and ethnicity in radiation oncology to that of hematology and medical oncology, complex general surgical oncology, and all other specialties. Results: A total of 3,315 radiation oncology positions were identified over the study period, 2015 and 2020. 1,938 (58.5%) of radiation oncology residency positions were filled by residents who identified as White, 967 (29.2%) as Asian/ Pacific Islander, 126 (3.8%) as Hispanic, 120 (3.6%) as Black, 7 (0.2%) as Native American/ Alaskan, and 157 (4.7%) as Other. URM representation was 7.6% in total and was relatively stagnant, remaining between 7.3% and 8.0% across study years. Results of chi square comparative analysis demonstrated lower rates of representation in radiation oncology in comparison to hematology and medical oncology as well as all other specialties (Table). Conclusions: There is lack of racial and ethnic diversity in radiation-oncology residency training positions in the United States. Over the five-year study period, only 7.6% of trainees identified as URM. URMs have significantly lower rates of representation in radiation-oncology compared to hematology and medical oncology, and other specialties. Efforts to mitigate disparities require a multifaceted approach.[Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document