Search

Your search keyword '"Dominici, Laura S."' showing total 171 results
Start Over Author "Dominici, Laura S."
171 results on '"Dominici, Laura S."'

24. Supplementary Data from Impact of a Pre-Operative Exercise Intervention on Breast Cancer Proliferation and Gene Expression: Results from the Pre-Operative Health and Body (PreHAB) Study

Author

Ligibel, Jennifer A., primary, Dillon, Deborah, primary, Giobbie-Hurder, Anita, primary, McTiernan, Anne, primary, Frank, Elizabeth, primary, Cornwell, MacIntosh, primary, Pun, Matthew, primary, Campbell, Nancy, primary, Dowling, Ryan J.O., primary, Chang, Martin C., primary, Tolaney, Sara, primary, Chagpar, Anees B., primary, Yung, Rachel L., primary, Freedman, Rachel A., primary, Dominici, Laura S., primary, Golshan, Mehra, primary, Rhei, Esther, primary, Taneja, Krishan, primary, Huang, Ying, primary, Brown, Myles, primary, Winer, Eric P., primary, Jeselsohn, Rinath, primary, and Irwin, Melinda L., primary

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Development of an Electronic Health Record Registry to Facilitate Collection of Commission on Cancer Metrics for Patients Undergoing Surgery for Breast Cancer

Author

Lyu, Heather G., primary, Kantor, Olga, additional, Laws, Alison D., additional, McDonald, James, additional, Pham, Lisa, additional, Dominici, Laura S., additional, Vincuilla, Julie, additional, Raut, Chandrajit P., additional, Danilchuk, Bryan, additional, Novak, Lara, additional, Parker, Tonia, additional, King, Tari A., additional, and Mittendorf, Elizabeth A., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Breast Cancer Care Delivery

Author

Nagra, Navraj S., primary, Tsangaris, Elena, additional, Means, Jessica, additional, Hassett, Michael J., additional, Dominici, Laura S., additional, Bellon, Jennifer R., additional, Broyles, Justin, additional, Kaplan, Robert S., additional, Feeley, Thomas W., additional, and Pusic, Andrea L., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Association of Breast Cancer Surgery With Quality of Life and Psychosocial Well-being in Young Breast Cancer Survivors

Author

Rosenberg, Shoshana M., primary, Dominici, Laura S., additional, Gelber, Shari, additional, Poorvu, Philip D., additional, Ruddy, Kathryn J., additional, Wong, Julia S., additional, Tamimi, Rulla M., additional, Schapira, Lidia, additional, Come, Steven, additional, Peppercorn, Jeffrey M., additional, Borges, Virginia F., additional, and Partridge, Ann H., additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. Patterns of breast reconstruction in patients diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer: The Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute's Inflammatory Breast Cancer Program experience

Author

Nakhlis, Faina, primary, Regan, Meredith M., additional, Chun, Yoon S., additional, Dominici, Laura S., additional, Caterson, Stephanie, additional, Bellon, Jennifer R., additional, Warren, Laura, additional, Yeh, Eren D., additional, Jacene, Heather A., additional, King, Tari A., additional, and Overmoyer, Beth, additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

43. Patient‐reported outcomes in the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium

Author

Bowen, Deborah J., primary, Shinn, Eileen H., additional, Gregrowski, Sophie, additional, Kimmick, Gretchen, additional, Dominici, Laura S., additional, Frank, Elizabeth S., additional, Smith, Karen Lisa, additional, Rocque, Gabrielle, additional, Ruddy, Kathryn J., additional, Pollastro, Teri, additional, Melisko, Michelle, additional, Ballinger, Tarah J., additional, Fayanju, Oluwadamilola M., additional, and Wolff, Antonio C., additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

45. Impact of a Pre-Operative Exercise Intervention on Breast Cancer Proliferation and Gene Expression: Results from the Pre-Operative Health and Body (PreHAB) Study

Author

Ligibel, Jennifer A., primary, Dillon, Deborah, additional, Giobbie-Hurder, Anita, additional, McTiernan, Anne, additional, Frank, Elizabeth, additional, Cornwell, MacIntosh, additional, Pun, Matthew, additional, Campbell, Nancy, additional, Dowling, Ryan J.O., additional, Chang, Martin C., additional, Tolaney, Sara, additional, Chagpar, Anees B., additional, Yung, Rachel L., additional, Freedman, Rachel A., additional, Dominici, Laura S., additional, Golshan, Mehra, additional, Rhei, Esther, additional, Taneja, Krishan, additional, Huang, Ying, additional, Brown, Myles, additional, Winer, Eric P., additional, Jeselsohn, Rinath, additional, and Irwin, Melinda L., additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Standardized activities for lay patient navigators in breast cancer care: Recommendations from a citywide implementation study

Author

Freund, Karen M., primary, Haas, Jennifer S., additional, Lemon, Stephenie C., additional, Burns White, Karen, additional, Casanova, Nicole, additional, Dominici, Laura S., additional, Erban, John K., additional, Freedman, Rachel A., additional, James, Ted A., additional, Ko, Naomi Y., additional, LeClair, Amy M., additional, Moy, Beverly, additional, Parsons, Susan K., additional, and Battaglia, Tracy A., additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

47. Incorporating Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures into Breast Surgical Oncology: Advancing Toward Value‐Based Care.

Author

Lagendijk, Mirelle, Mittendorf, Elizabeth, King, Tari A., Gibbons, Christopher, Pusic, Andrea, and Dominici, Laura S.

Subjects
BREAST tumors, MEDICAL quality control, MEDICAL care costs, HEALTH outcome assessment, ONCOLOGY, QUALITY of life, TREATMENT effectiveness, PATIENT-centered care, VALUE-based healthcare
Abstract

Value in health care is defined as the health outcome achieved per unit of cost. For health care systems, improving value means achieving better outcomes at lower costs. Improving outcomes, including patient‐reported outcomes (PROs), as well as more established metrics such as mortality and complication rates, ensures high‐quality care. This is particularly true in breast cancer surgery, where survival and recurrence rates are comparable across different surgical approaches. Outcomes reflecting survivorship quality may therefore better inform decision making regarding surgical approaches. PROs can be assessed using validated instruments known as patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). They are obtained directly from patients reflecting their health‐related quality of life (HRQOL). Ongoing initiatives strive to define PROMs that accurately reflect HRQOL and demonstrate value, with the goal of establishing benchmarks for quality of care. Clinicians caring for patients with breast cancer are well positioned to be involved in defining meaningful measures of value‐based breast cancer care. This article reviews value‐based breast cancer care in the context of locoregional therapy, with attention paid to the work done by the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures in which a "standard set" of value‐based patient‐centered outcomes for breast cancer for international use is defined. In addition, an overview is provided of relevant PROMs and previously reported scores. Recommendations and future challenges for implementation of routine collection of PROs are also discussed. Implications for Practice: Opportunity exists to act as early adopters of the routine collection of longitudinal patient‐reported outcome data for breast cancer, allowing transition of current care to value‐based cancer care. The focus of this article is on the role of patient‐reported outcomes in advancing toward value‐based breast cancer care in the context of locoregional therapy, with attention to the work of the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures, which defines a standard set of value‐based patient‐centered outcomes for breast cancer for international use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

48. Patient-reported outcomes in the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium.

Author

Bowen, Deborah J., Shinn, Eileen H., Gregrowski, Sophie, Kimmick, Gretchen, Dominici, Laura S., Frank, Elizabeth S., Smith, Karen Lisa, Rocque, Gabrielle, Ruddy, Kathryn J., Pollastro, Teri, Melisko, Michelle, Ballinger, Tarah J., Fayanju, Oluwadamilola M., and Wolff, Antonio C.

Subjects
BREAST cancer research, CONSORTIA, BREAST tumor treatment, CLINICAL trials, COMPARATIVE studies, RESEARCH methodology, MEDICAL cooperation, QUALITY of life, RESEARCH, RESEARCH funding, EVALUATION research
Abstract

Members of the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium conducted an expert-driven literature review to identify a list of domains and to evaluate potential measures of these domains for inclusion in a list of preferred measures. Measures were included if they were easily available, free of charge, and had acceptable psychometrics based on published peer-reviewed analyses. A total of 22 domains and 52 measures were identified during the selection process. Taken together, these measures form a reliable and validated list of measurement tools that are easily available and used in multiple cancer trials to assess patient-reported outcomes in relevant patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. Generative artificial intelligence as a source of breast cancer information for patients: Proceed with caution.

Author

Park, Ko Un, Lipsitz, Stuart, Dominici, Laura S., Lynce, Filipa, Minami, Christina A., Nakhlis, Faina, Waks, Adrienne G., Warren, Laura E., Eidman, Nadine, Frazier, Jeannie, Hernandez, Lourdes, Leslie, Carla, Rafte, Susan, Stroud, Delia, Weissman, Joel S., King, Tari A., and Mittendorf, Elizabeth A.

Subjects
*GENERATIVE artificial intelligence, *CHATGPT, *INTRACLASS correlation, *CHATBOTS, *WORD frequency
Abstract

Background Methods Results Conclusions This study evaluated the accuracy, clinical concordance, and readability of the chatbot interface generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) 3.5 as a source of breast cancer information for patients.Twenty questions that patients are likely to ask ChatGPT were identified by breast cancer advocates. These were posed to ChatGPT 3.5 in July 2023 and were repeated three times. Responses were graded in two domains: accuracy (4‐point Likert scale, 4 = worst) and clinical concordance (information is clinically similar to physician response; 5‐point Likert scale, 5 = not similar at all). The concordance of responses with repetition was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of word counts. Response readability was calculated using the Flesch Kincaid readability scale. References were requested and verified.The overall average accuracy was 1.88 (range 1.0–3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42–1.94), and clinical concordance was 2.79 (range 1.0–5.0; 95% CI, 1.94–3.64). The average word count was 310 words per response (range, 146–441 words per response) with high concordance (ICC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59–0.91; p < .001). The average readability was poor at 37.9 (range, 18.0–60.5) with high concordance (ICC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.90; p < .001). There was a weak correlation between ease of readability and better clinical concordance (−0.15; p = .025). Accuracy did not correlate with readability (0.05; p = .079). The average number of references was 1.97 (range, 1–4; total, 119). ChatGPT cited peer‐reviewed articles only once and often referenced nonexistent websites (41%).Because ChatGPT 3.5 responses were incorrect 24% of the time and did not provide real references 41% of the time, patients should be cautioned about using ChatGPT for medical information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results