| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
- Liapis, C. D., et al.
(author)
-
Vascular training and endovascular practice in Europe
- 2009
-
In: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 1078-5884 .- 1532-2165. ; 37:1, s. 109-15
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of the status of vascular surgery (VS) training paradigms on the actual practice of endovascular therapy among the European countries. METHODS: An email-based survey concerning vascular surgery training models and endovascular practices of different clinical specialties was distributed to a VS educator within 14 European countries. European Vascular and Endovascular Monitor (EVEM) data also were processed to correlate endovascular practice with training models. RESULTS: Fourteen questionnaires were gathered. Vascular training in Europe appears in 3 models: 1. Mono-specialty (independence): 7 countries, 2. Subspecialty: 5 countries, 3. An existing specialty within general surgery: 2 countries. Independent compared to non-independent certification shortens overall training length (5.9 vs 7.9 years, p=0.006), while increasing overall training devoted specifically to VS (3.9 vs 2.7 years, p=0.008). Among countries with independent certification an average of 76% of aortic and 50% of peripheral endovascular procedures are performed by vascular surgeons, while the corresponding values, for countries with a non-independent certification, are 69% and 36% respectively. Countries with independent vascular certification, despite their lower average endovascular index (procedures per 100,000 population), reported a higher growth rate of aortic endovascular procedures (VS independent 132% vs VS non-independent 87%), within a four-year period (2003-2007). Peripheral endovascular procedures, though, have similar growth rates in both country groups (VS independent 62% vs VS non-independent 60%). CONCLUSIONS: In European countries with VS as an independent specialty, vascular surgeons have a shorter total training period but spend more time in VS training, although they may not undertake a greater proportion of the endovascular procedures their countries appear to have adopted endovascular technologies more rapidly compared to the ones with non-independent VS curricula. Whether such differences influence patient outcomes requires investigation in future studies.
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Valentini, Vincenzo, et al.
(author)
-
Evidence and research in rectal cancer
- 2008
-
In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140 .- 1879-0887. ; 87:3, s. 449-474
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The main evidences of epidemiology, diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and follow-up are reviewed to optimize the routine treatment of rectal cancer according to a multidisciplinary approach. This paper reports on the knowledge shared between different specialists involved in the design and management of the multidisciplinary ESTRO Teaching Course on Rectal Cancer. The scenario of ongoing research is also addressed. In this time of changing treatments, it clearly appears that a common standard for large heterogeneous patient groups have to be substituted by more individualised therapies based on clinical-pathological features and very soon on molecular and genetic markers. Only trained multidisciplinary teams can face this new challenge and tailor the treatments according to the best scientific evidence for each patient.
|
|
| 17. |
- Valentini, Vincenzo, et al.
(author)
-
Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Management : 2nd European Rectal Cancer Consensus Conference (EURECA-CC2)
- 2009
-
In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140 .- 1879-0887. ; 92:2, s. 148-163
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the first decade of the 21st century a number of important European randomized studies were published. In order to help shape clinical practice based on best scientific evidence from the literature, the International Conference on 'Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) was organized in Italy under the endorsement of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), and European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO). METHODS: Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. The document was available to all Committee members as a web-based document customized for the consensus process. Eight chapters were identified: epidemiology, diagnostics, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment toxicity and quality of life, follow-up, and research questions. Each chapter was subdivided by a topic, and a series of statements were developed. Each member commented and voted, sentence by sentence thrice. Sentences upon which an agreement was not reached after voting round # 2 were openly debated during a Consensus Conference in Perugia (Italy) from 11 December to 13 December 2008. A hand-held televoting system collected the opinions of both the Committee members and the audience after each debate. The Executive Committee scored percentage consensus based on three categories: "large consensus", "moderate consensus", and "minimum consensus". RESULTS: The total number of the voted sentences was 207. Of the 207, 86% achieved large consensus, 13% achieved moderate consensus, and only 3 (1%) resulted in minimum consensus. No statement was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the members, and the majority was voted on by >85%. CONCLUSIONS: This Consensus Conference represents an expertise opinion process that may help shape future programs, investigational protocols, and guidelines for staging and treatment of rectal cancer throughout Europe.
|
|
