Search

Introduction: Family planning among female physicians is harmed by high risks of infertility, workload burden, poor family leave policies, and gender discrimination. Many women report feeling unsupported in the workplace, despite national policies to protect against unfair treatment. Methods: This secondary analysis applied a modified version of the rigorous and accelerated data reduction technique to conduct a thematic analysis of comments to an open‐ended prompt. Comments were coded by multiple trained researchers then grouped and merged into illustrative themes via qualitative techniques. Results: Of 1004 responses to the quantitative survey, 162 physicians completed the open‐ended prompt. Initial codes (n = 16) were combined into eight groups including, from which three overarching themes were identified. Institutional barriers were highlighted with comments discussing the increased need for parental leave, part‐time options and the concern for academic or professional punishment for being pregnant and/or having children. Departmental barriers were explored with comments grouped around codes of discrimination/negative culture and challenges with breastfeeding/pumping and childcare. Personal barriers were discussed in themes highlighting the difficulties that female physicians faced around the timing of family planning, challenges with reproductive health and assistance, and alternative circumstances and/or decisions against family planning. Conclusion: Barriers to family planning in oncology exist across career domains from dysfunctional maternity leave to poor education on infertility risk. Solutions include improving institutional support, expanding parental leave, and general cultural change to improve awareness and promotion of family and career balance. Many female physicians report feeling unsupported in the workplace with respect to family planning and gender discrimination, despite national policies to protect against unfair treatment. This mixed‐methods study showed barriers to family planning in oncology exist across career domains from dysfunctional maternity leave to poor education on infertility risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delineating the proximal urethra can be critical for radiotherapy planning but is challenging on computerised tomography (CT) imaging. Materials and methods: We trialed a novel non-invasive technique to allow visualisation of the proximal urethra using a rapid sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol to visualise the urinary flow in patients voiding during the simulation scan. Results: Of the seven patients enrolled, four were able to void during the MRI scan. For these four patients, direct visualisation of urinary flow through the proximal urethra was achieved. The average volume of the proximal urethra contoured on voiding MRI was significantly higher than the proximal urethra contoured on CT, 4·07 and 1·60 cc, respectively (p = 0·02). The proximal urethra location also differed; the Dice coefficient average was 0·28 (range 0–0·62). Findings: In this small, proof-of-concept prospective clinical trial, the volume and location of the proximal urethra differed significantly when contoured on a voiding MRI scan compared to that determined by a conventional CT simulation. The shape of the proximal urethra on voiding MRI may be more anatomically correct compared to the proximal urethra shape determined with a semi-rigid catheter in place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) are widely used by patients with cancer. However, little is known about the extent to which these potential remedies are used internationally to treat the most common toxicities of radiation therapy. We report on the results of an international survey that assessed the use of CAMs., Methods and Materials: Surveys were distributed to 1174 practicing radiation oncologists. Questions evaluated the perceptions of CAMs and specific practice patterns for the use of CAM remedies in the treatment of common radiation-induced toxicities (eg, skin, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and mucositis/xerostomia). The responses were compared between the groups using the χ 2 test and stratified on the basis of provider location, number of years in practice, and perception of CAMs., Results: A total of 114 radiation oncologists from 29 different countries completed the survey, with a balanced distribution between North American (n = 56) and non-North American (n = 58) providers. Among the responding clinicians, 63% recommended CAMs in their practice. The proportion of clinicians who recommend CAMs for radiation toxicities did not significantly vary when stratified by provider's number of years in practice ( P = .23) or location (United States/Canada vs other; P = .74). Overall, providers reported that 29.4% of their patients use CAMs, and 87.7% reported that their practice encouraged or was neutral on CAM use, whereas 12.3% recommended stopping CAMs. The most common sources of patient information on CAMs were the Internet (75.4%), friends (60.5%), and family (58.8%). Clinicians reported the highest use of CAMs for radiation skin toxicity at 66.7%, followed by 48.2% for fatigue, 40.4% for nausea, and 36.8% for mucositis/xerostomia., Conclusions: Nearly two-thirds of the surveyed radiation oncologists recommend CAMs for radiation-related toxicities; however, they estimated that less than one third of patients use CAMs for this purpose. This suggests a need for further investigation and perhaps greater patient education on the roles of CAMs in treating radiation toxicities.