Training resource document for curriculum development in medical oncology. Adopted on February 20, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 372-379 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Subspecialty Training ◽  
Curriculum Guidelines ◽  
Frame Work ◽  
American Society ◽  
Outpatient Settings

PURPOSE: Medical oncology is a rapidly growing profession, not only in its membership, but in its knowledge-base as well. In order to keep pace with the changing profile of health care delivery and still ensure uniform quality subspecialty training, a template for education is needed. DESIGN AND RESULTS: An Ad Hoc Committee was created from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership. Goals of training were discussed and curriculum guidelines were created. To gain special expertise in medical oncology, the curriculum emphasizes formal instruction in the following: (1) the treatment of individual malignancies, with an emphasis on a coordinated multidisciplinary approach; (2) a clinical experience that emphasizes patient management in both the inpatient and outpatient settings; (3) the ability to perform specified procedures; and (4) the key tools in basic science that apply to patient management. This document should be considered the educational frame work around which a curriculum is developed.

scholarly journals Practice Changing Results in RCC come from ASCO 2021

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Matrana ◽  
Erin Pierce ◽  
Erica Doubleday
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Great Success ◽  
Second Year ◽  
American Society

For the second year in a row, the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was held virtually due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the meeting was hailed as a great success and brought much practice changing data in the field of genitourinary medical oncology, including kidney cancer.

Resource document for curriculum development in cancer genetics education. American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 2157-2169 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Cancer Predisposition ◽  
Genetics Education ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
Curriculum Guidelines ◽  
American Society

PURPOSE The rapid growth in the use of genetic testing for heritable cancers and other diseases has led to the establishment of many committees to assess the status and future implications of such testing. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published a statement on genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in May 1996. In that statement, ASCO recognized the need for a major initiative to develop courses and other educational materials for ASCO members and other health care professionals that were pertinent to cancer genetics and the role of cancer predisposition testing in clinical oncology. These curriculum guidelines represent an effort to promote formal instruction on the assessment and management of familial cancer risks in training programs and continuing education courses. DESIGN AND RESULTS An Ad hoc Task Force was created from the ASCO membership and other professional organizations. Goals of ASCO's cancer genetics education initiative, curriculum guidelines, and plans for implementation of the curriculum have been developed. To gain understanding and competency in cancer genetics and cancer predisposition testing, the curriculum emphasizes formal instruction in: (1) basic concepts and principles of genetics; (2) an understanding of the role of genetics in the etiology, diagnosis, and management of different malignancies; (3) an understanding of the ethical, legal, and social issues that surround predisposition testing; and (4) long-term management plans for individuals at high risk for cancer. This document is broad in scope and applicable to all types of malignancies. It should be considered as the framework around which cancer genetics education is developed. It is expected that implementation of training activities over the next few years will allow ASCO to fulfill its obligations to the membership. CONCLUSION This curriculum should prove a valuable guide to those who wish further education on cancer genetics and the appropriate use of cancer predisposition testing.

scholarly journals Dynamic Assessment of Value During High-Cost Cancer Treatment: A Response to American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 1215-1218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Given ◽  
Barbara A. Given ◽  
Cathy J. Bradley ◽  
John C. Krauss ◽  
Alla Sikorskii ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
European Society ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Dynamic Assessment ◽  
American Society

Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale measure the same construct of clinical benefit?

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6509-6509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sierra Cheng ◽  
Erica McDonald ◽  
Matthew C. Cheung ◽  
Vanessa Sarah Arciero ◽  
Mahin Iqbal Qureshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
European Society ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Oncology Drug ◽  
Life Years ◽  
American Society

6509 Background: Whether the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the UK and Canada. Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of oncology drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and Health Canada between January 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework (August 10, 2015), ASCO version 2 (v2) framework (May 31, 2016) and ESMO-MCBS (May 30, 2015) by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against incremental QALYs from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined by logistic regression models. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: From 109 included RCTs, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2 and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 vs. ESMO, ASCOv2 vs. ESMO, and ASCOv1 vs. ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI 0.15-0.54), 0.17 (95% CI -0.06-0.37) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.35-0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2) and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2) and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusions: The weak-to-moderate correlations between the ASCO frameworks and ESMO-MCBS, with QALYs, and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS in fact did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.

Cancer Pain Assessment and Treatment Curriculum Guidelines. The Ad Hoc Committee on Cancer Pain of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1992 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 1976-1982 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Further Education ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Curriculum Guidelines ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
American Society

PURPOSE More than 70% of patients with cancer develop significant pain at some time during the course of their illness. Despite the general consensus that most cancer pain can be treated effectively, many patients receive inadequate treatment of their pain. One significant contributing factor is the failure of health care professionals to receive formal training in this important aspect of oncology. The Cancer Pain Assessment and Treatment Curriculum Guidelines reflect the American Society of Clinical Oncology's commitment to providing optimal pain relief to patients with cancer. These guidelines represent an effort to promote formal instruction on the assessment and treatment of cancer pain in training programs and continuing education courses. DESIGN AND RESULTS The curriculum is broad in scope and applicable to patients of all ages. The guidelines emphasize the need for (1) routine pain assessment, (2) proficiency in prescribing opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and adjuvant medications, and (3) an understanding of the potential benefits of antineoplastic, anesthetic, neurosurgical, and behavioral approaches, which often require a coordinated multidisciplinary approach. CONCLUSION This curriculum should prove a valuable guide to those who wish further education on the optimal treatment of cancer pain.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document