Bille Berger (bamboozinc4)

To compare Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) and effective dose from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening with that from full field digital mammography (FFDM) screening. To simulate compressed breasts, two Perspex-polyethylene breast phantoms were used, one phantom for compressed breast in craniocaudal and the other for compressed breast in mediolateral oblique. An adult ATOM dosimetry phantom was loaded with high sensitivity thermoluminescence dosimeters; the phantom was then positioned on Hologic Selenia Dimensions mammographic machine to imitate DBT and 4-view FFDM screening. Organ radiation doses were measured from 4-view DBT and 4-view FFDM (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views for each breast). Organ radiation doses were used to calculate effective dose from one screening session. MGD for DBT was 3.6mGy; MGD for FFDM was 2.8mGy. For DBT, other organs (e.g. thymus, lungs, salivary glands, thyroid, contralateral breast and bone marrow) radiation dose was also higher than for FFDM. The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the effective dose (E) of one screening session by 22%. E for DBT was 0.44mSv; E for FFDM was 0.34mSv. The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the radiation dose to screening clients. The use of DBT for breast cancer screening increases the radiation dose to screening clients. In 2017, as part of a readiness plan for the launch of a novel symptom screening tool for prostate cancer patients, an interprofessional working group was assembled at Odette Cancer Centre (OCC). A provincial Phase II pilot for the tool had stated (based on stakeholder feedback) that there was a need to "Develop training and resources for patients and clinicians that facilitate the interpretation of patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) …." With this recommendation in mind, the working group aimed to develop and implement a training and education plan. The plan would support healthcare professionals (HCPs) in their clinical response to the PROM tool symptom screening scores.The aim was to encourage evidence based symptom management and therefore improve care for patients. A questionnaire was developed to elicit information regarding HCP's comfort level and knowledge related to issues experienced by prostate cancer patients. The issues were categorised according to the domains identified within the scatabase of resources to facilitate independent education may be useful for some HCPs. Older adults with cancer are at increased risk of delirium due to age, comorbidities, medications, cognitive impairment, and possibly cancer treatments. However, there is scant information on the risks of delirium with chemotherapy and approaches to prevent or treat it. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize available evidence. We systematically searched peer-reviewed journal articles in English, French, German, and Dutch from five databases from 1990 to May 2019 to identify studies examining delirium in adult patients receiving chemotherapy. We also attempted to identify delirium risk prediction models and prevention or treatment trials. All reviews and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Summary estimates were derived from random effects models. A total of 23,389 titles and abstracts were screened, and 1272 full-text articles were reviewed. Nineteen articles reported on delirium using an acceptable diagnostic standard. Sample sizes varied from 7 to 324. The incidence of delirium ranged from 0 to 51% (weighted mean 9%, 95% confidence interval 5-16%). In a sensitivity analysis including 122 studies that used terminology suggestive of delirium but did not meet our inclusion criteria, the weighted incidence of delirium was 10% (95% confidence interval 8-12%). Age was not consistently associated with increased delirium risk. No intervention studies to prevent or treat delirium were