Search

Your search keyword '"Jimenez, Rachel B."' showing total 276 results
Start Over Author "Jimenez, Rachel B."
276 results on '"Jimenez, Rachel B."'

1. Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation in the RadComp Trial

Author

Godette, Karen D., Patel, Sagar, Langen, Katja M., Zielan, Ryan R., DeBlois, David, Pang, Dalong, Rudra, Sonali, Benhabib, Sidi, Chawla, Ashish, Chen, Kuanling, Dadkhah, Hossein, Majithia, Lonika, Rao, Avani D., Stephenson, Lisa, Wang, Peng, Croog, Victoria J., Li, Heng, Smith, Karen, Stinson, Susan, Walker, Amanda J., Devisetty, Kiran, Hyde, Christian, Depauw, Nicholas, Godishala, Anuradha, Ho, Alice, Paganetti, Harald, Soto, Daniel, Suero-Abreu, Giselle, Taghian, Alphonse G., Corbin, Kimberly S., Halyard, Michele Y., Jackson, Amanda, Liang, Xiaoying, Manke, Heather, McGee, Lisa A., Pafundi, Deanna H., Remmes, Nicholas B., Shumway, Dean A., Yan, Elizabeth S., Bakhoum, Samuel F., Barron, David A., Bernstein, Michael, Cuaron, John J., Dover, Laura, Gelblum, Daphna Y., Gilbo, Philip, Gewanter, Richard M., Guttman, David M., Hong, Linda, Khan, Atif, LaPlant, Quincey, Mann, Justin, McCormick, Beryl, Mueller, Boris A., Mychalczak, Borys, Parikh, Dhwani, Powell, Simon N., Romesser, Paul B., Roth O'Brien, Diana, Schupak, Karen D., Shepherd, Annemarie F., Xu, Amy, Yu, Anthony, Zinovoy, Melissa, Bennouna, Jaafar, Fagundes, Marcio, Panoff, Joseph, Amelia Rodrigues, Maria, Yu, Jen, Lee, Choonsik, Chen, Chin-Cheng, Choi, J. Isabelle, Lin, Haibo, Akthar, Adil S., Akhter, Nausheen, Mihalcik, Stephen A., Pankuch, Mark, Parhar, Preeti K., Stutz, Michael D., Thukral, Arpi D., Mah, Dennis, Tsai, Henry K., Paulus, Rebecca, Haffty, Bruce G., Goyal, Sharad, Yue, Ning J., Sturgeon, Jared D., Wilkinson, J. Ben, Boggs, D. Hunter, Cardan, Rex A., Dalton, Allison, McDonald, Andrew, Prior, Fred, Mayadev, Jyoti S., Moiseenko, Vitali, Narezkina, Anya, Phreaner, Nicholas, Rash, Dominique, Seibert, Tyler, Yashar, Catheryn, Daugherty, Emily C., Mascia, Anthony, Medek, Sara A., Meier, Teresa, Bradley, Julie A., Lockney, Natalie, Mailhot, Raymond B., Mendenhall, Nancy, Rutenberg, Michael, Harris, Eleanor E., Lyons, Janice, Hong, Jack J., Kunaprayoon, Dan K., McAvoy, Sarah A., Manu Mysore, Nowak Choi, Kamila A., Patel, Akshar N., Vyfhuis, Melissa A.L., Wilson, Joelle, Algan, Ozer, Chen, Yong, Henson, Christina E., Dvorak, Tomas, Willoughby, Twyla, Zeidan, Omar, Berman, Abigail T., Chen, Et-tsu, Dong, Lei, Driscoll, Amanda, Feigenberg, Steven J., Feriozzi, Ashley, Hencek, Carolyn, Kolker, James D., Konski, Andre A., Ky, Bonnie, Lin, Lilie L., Novick, Kristina L., Reza, Nosheen, Siegal, Ann Marie, Tabakha, Sara, Taunk, Neil K., Wilcox, Nicholas, Zou, Wei, Bhooshan, Neha, Croley, Richard, Weksberg, David C., Ahmad, Neelour, Hoffman, Karen E., Joyner, Melissa M., Mitchell, Melissa P., Poenisch, Falk, Smith, Benjamin D., Strom, Eric A., Vallabhaneni, Srilakshmi, Cheng, Richard, Kang, Kylie H., Kim, H. Katherine, Kim, Janice N., Wang, Waylene A., Wong, Tony, Bosch, Walter, Mitchell, Joshua, Straube, William, Zoberi, Imran, Balanescu, Dinu, Chen, Peter Y., Dilworth, Joshua T., Ding, Xuanfeng, Donisan, Teodora, Hamstra, Daniel A., Daniella Dang, Phuong, Katz, Stanford, Wang, Chiachien J., Terry Wu, Hahn, Elizabeth A., Pugh, Stephanie L., Lu, Hien L., Vela, Alyssa M., Gillespie, Erin F., Nichols, Elizabeth M., Wright, Jean L., MacDonald, Shannon M., Cahlon, Oren, Baas, Carole, Braunstein, Lior Z., Fang, L. Christine, Freedman, Gary M., Jimenez, Rachel B., Kesslering, Christy M., Mishra, Mark V., Mutter, Robert W., Ohri, Nisha, Rosen, Lane R., Urbanic, James J., Jagsi, Reshma, Mitchell, Sandra A., Bekelman, Justin E., and Cella, David

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. How Ending Affirmative Action May Affect Radiation Oncology Workforce and Our Patients: A Collaboration of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs, Association for Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs, and Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology

Author

LeCompte, Michael C., Gibbs, Iris C., Taparra, Kekoa, Suneja, Gita, Deville, Curtiland, Jr, White, Zachary, II, MacDuffie, Emily, Pinnix, Chelsea C., Kamrava, Mitchell, Jimenez, Rachel B., Currey, Adam D., Chen, Yuhchyau, and Franco, Idalid

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group 2020 Spring Symposium: Is Virtual the New Reality?

Author

Nelson, Bailey A, Lapen, Kaitlyn, Schultz, Olivia, Nangachiveettil, Joseph, Braunstein, Steve E, Fernandez, Christian, Fields, Emma C, Gunther, Jillian R, Jeans, Elizabeth, Jimenez, Rachel B, Kharofa, Jordan R, Laucis, Anna, Yechieli, Raphael L, Gillespie, Erin F, and Golden, Daniel W

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Cancer, COVID-19, Congresses as Topic, Female, Humans, Intersectoral Collaboration, Male, Radiation Oncology, SARS-CoV-2, Surveys and Questionnaires, Virtual Reality, Other Physical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Oncology and carcinogenesis, Theoretical and computational chemistry, Medical and biological physics
Abstract

PurposeBecause of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) hosted its annual international symposium using a virtual format in May 2020. This report details the experience of hosting a virtual meeting and presents attendee feedback on the platform.Methods and materialsThe ROECSG symposium was hosted virtually on May 15, 2020. A postsymposium survey was distributed electronically to assess attendee demographics, participation, and experience. Attendee preference and experience were queried using 3-point and 5-point Likert-type scales, respectively. Symplur LLC was used to generate analytics for the conference hashtag (#ROECSG).ResultsThe survey was distributed to all 286 registrants, with a response rate of 67% (191 responses). Seventeen nonattendee responses were omitted from this analysis, for a total of 174 included respondents. Eighty-two attendees (47%) were present for the entire symposium. A preference for a virtual symposium was expressed by 78 respondents (45%), whereas 44 (25%) had no preference and 52 (30%) preferred an in-person meeting. A total of 150 respondents (86%) rated the symposium as "extremely" well organized. Respondents who had not attended a prior in-person ROECSG symposium were more likely to prefer the virtual format (P = .03). Seventy-eight respondents (45%) reported a preference for the virtual platform for reviewing scholarly work, and 103 (59%) reported a preference for an in-person platform for networking. On the day of the symposium, #ROECSG had 408 tweets and 432,504 impressions.ConclusionsThe 2020 ROECSG symposium was well received and can serve as a framework for future virtual meetings. Although the virtual setting may facilitate sharing research, networking aspects are more limited. Effort is needed to develop hybrid virtual and in-person meetings that meet the needs of participants in both settings. Social media is a significant avenue for dissemination and discussion of information and may be valuable in the virtual setting.

Published
2021

8. Serial Measurement of Global Longitudinal Strain Among Women With Breast Cancer Treated With Proton Radiation Therapy: A Prospective Trial for 70 Patients

Author

Hassan, Malek Z.O., Awadalla, Magid, Tan, Timothy C., Scherrer-Crosbie, Marielle, Bakar, Rula Bany, Drobni, Zsofia D., Zarif, Azmaeen, Gilman, Hannah K, Supraja, Sama, Nikolaidou, Sofia, Zhang, Lili, Zlotoff, Daniel A., Hickey, Shea B., Patel, Sagar A., Januzzi, James L., Keane, Florence, Passeri, Jonathon J., Neilan, Tomas G., MacDonald, Shannon M., and Jimenez, Rachel B.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Introductory Radiation Oncology Curriculum: Report of a National Needs Assessment and Multi-institutional Pilot Implementation

Author

Gunther, Jillian R, Jimenez, Rachel B, Yechieli, Raphael L, Parekh, Akash, Berman, Abigail T, Braunstein, Steve E, Hirsch, Ariel E, Gillespie, Erin F, Vapiwala, Neha, Thomas, Charles R, Fields, Emma C, and Golden, Daniel W

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Cancer, Clinical Competence, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Graduate, Humans, Internet, Internship and Residency, Needs Assessment, Pilot Projects, Program Evaluation, Radiation Oncology, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Other Physical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Oncology and carcinogenesis, Theoretical and computational chemistry, Medical and biological physics
Abstract

PURPOSE:To assess the optimal structure of an introductory curriculum (IC) for radiation oncology residents, including the perceived utility of a 2-day off-site "boot camp," and evaluate the success of a pilot introductory radiation oncology curriculum (IROC) based on these initial data. METHODS AND MATERIALS:In the first phase, anonymous, web-based surveys were sent to US radiation oncology program directors and residents. Likert-type scores (1, not at all; 5, extremely) are reported as the median and interquartile range. Using the phase 1 results, IROC was developed, piloted, and evaluated. RESULTS:Of the 89 program directors and 697 residents, 47 (53%) and 165 (24%) responded, respectively. Of the 89 program directors, 37 (79%) reported offering a formal IC. However, only 83 residents (50%) reported having a formal IC. Program directors reported resident preparation for clinical training as "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) on entering residency and "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) after IC completion (P = .03). However, residents only believed they were "slightly" prepared (median 2, interquartile range 1-2) on entering residency and "moderately" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) prepared after IC completion (P

Published
2018

17. Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee

Author

Mutter, Robert W., Choi, J. Isabelle, Jimenez, Rachel B., Kirova, Youlia M., Fagundes, Marcio, Haffty, Bruce G., Amos, Richard A., Bradley, Julie A., Chen, Peter Y., Ding, Xuanfeng, Carr, Antoinette M., Taylor, Leslie M., Pankuch, Mark, Vega, Raymond B. Mailhot, Ho, Alice Y., Nyström, Petra Witt, McGee, Lisa A., Urbanic, James J., Cahlon, Oren, Maduro, John H., and MacDonald, Shannon M.

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

18. Proton Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Craniopharyngioma

Author

Jimenez, Rachel B., Ahmed, Soha, Johnson, Andrew, Thomas, Horatio, Depauw, Nicolas, Horick, Nora, Tansky, Joanna, Evans, Casey L., Pulsifer, Margaret, Ebb, David, Butler, William E., Fullerton, Barbara, Tarbell, Nancy J., Yock, Torunn I., and MacDonald, Shannon M.

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

23. Evolving Role of Proton Radiation Therapy in Clinical Practice.

Author

Howard, Thomas P., McClelland III, Shearwood, and Jimenez, Rachel B.

Subjects
PROTON therapy, PATIENT education, HEALTH services accessibility, TREATMENT effectiveness, MARKETING, PROFESSIONS, PHYSICIAN-patient relations, TUMORS, ONCOLOGISTS, MEDICAL care costs
Abstract

With the expansion of proton radiation therapy centers across the United States and a gradually expanding body of academic evidence supporting its use, more patients are receiving—and asking about—proton therapy than ever before. Here, we outline, for nonradiation oncologists, the theoretical benefits of proton therapy, the clinical evidence to date, the controversies affecting utilization, and the numerous randomized trials currently in progress. We also discuss the challenges of researching and delivering proton therapy, including the cost of constructing and maintaining centers, barriers with insurance approval, clinical situations in which proton therapy may be approached with caution, and the issue of equitable access for all patients. The purpose of this review is to assist practicing oncologists in understanding the evolving role of proton therapy and to help nonradiation oncologists guide patients regarding this technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

27. Multi-Institutional Implementation and Evaluation of a Curriculum for the Medical Student Clerkship in Radiation Oncology

Author

Group, Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Writing Committee Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study, Golden, Daniel W, Braunstein, Steve, Jimenez, Rachel B, Mohindra, Pranshu, Spektor, Alexander, Ye, Jason C, Members, Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group, Bradley, Kristin A, Chmura, Steven J, Currey, Adam, Das, Prajnan, Du, Kevin, Haas-Kogan, Daphne, Howard, Andrew R, Higgins, Susan A, Hung, Arthur Y, Kharofa, Jordan, Krishnan, Monica S, MacDonald, Shannon M, Mancini, Brandon R, Parashar, Bhupesh, Thaker, Nikhil G, Thomas, Charles R, Viswanathan, Akila N, and Wheatley, Matt

Subjects
Cancer, Academic Medical Centers, Clinical Clerkship, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Program Development, Program Evaluation, Radiation Oncology, Surveys and Questionnaires, Radiation oncology, undergraduate medical education, curriculum, medical students, Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group, Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Writing Committee, Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Members, Clinical Sciences, Public Health and Health Services, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Abstract

PurposeRadiation oncology curriculum development is challenging because of limited numbers of trainees at any single institution. The goal of this project is to implement and evaluate a standardized medical student clerkship curriculum following the multi-institutional cooperative group research model.MethodsDuring the 2013 academic year, a standardized curriculum was implemented at 11 academic medical centers consisting of three 1-hour lectures and a hands-on radiation treatment planning workshop. After the curriculum, students completed anonymous evaluations using Likert-type scales (1 = "not at all" to 5 = "extremely") and free responses. Evaluations asked students to rate their comfort, before and after the curriculum, with radiation oncology as a specialty, knowledge of radiotherapy planning methods, and ability to function as a radiation oncology resident. Nonparametric statistical tests were used in the analysis.ResultsEighty-eight students at 11 academic medical centers completed the curriculum de novo, with a 72.7% (64 of 88) survey response rate. Fifty-seven students (89.1%) reported intent to pursue radiation oncology as their specialty. Median (interquartile range) student ratings of the importance of curricular content were as follows: overview, 4 (4-5); radiation biology/physics, 5 (4-5); practical aspects/emergencies, 5 (4-5); and planning workshop, 4 (4-5). Students reported that the curriculum helped them better understand radiation oncology as a specialty (5 [4-5]), increased specialty decision comfort (4 [3-5]), and would help the transition to radiation oncology residency (4 [4-5]). Students rated their specialty decision comfort significantly higher after completing the curriculum (4 [4-5] versus 5 [5-5]; P < .001).ConclusionsA national standardized curriculum was successfully implemented at 11 academic medical centers, providing proof of principle that curriculum development can follow the multi-institutional cooperative group research model.

Published
2016

32. Objective Evaluation of a Didactic Curriculum for the Radiation Oncology Medical Student Clerkship

Author

Hirsch, Ariel E., Warren, Laura E., Spektor, Alexander, Rudra, Sonali, Jimenez, Rachel B., Colbert, Lauren E., Gunther, Jillian R., Das, Prajnan, Wu, Abraham J., Du, Kevin, Kruser, Tim J., Nabavizadeh, Nima, Thomas, Charles R., Jr., Hara, Wendy, McDonald, Andrew, Chang, Eric M., Braunstein, Steve, Chmura, Steven J., Amsbaugh, Mark J., Yechieli, Raphael, Takita, Cristiane, Dean, Mary, Asher, David, Taunk, Neil K., Vargo, John Austin, Beriwal, Sushil, Ye, Jason C., Ballas, Leslie, Ballo, Matthew T., Brower, Jeffrey V., Bradley, Kristin A., Rao, Yuan J., Stahl, John M., Higgins, Susan A., Golden, Daniel W., Kauffmann, Gregory E., McKillip, Ryan P., Farnan, Jeanne M., Park, Yoon Soo, and Schwartz, Alan

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Multi-Institutional Implementation and Evaluation of a Curriculum for the Medical Student Clerkship in Radiation Oncology

Author

Bradley, Kristin A., Chmura, Steven J., Currey, Adam, Das, Prajnan, Du, Kevin, Haas-Kogan, Daphne, Howard, Andrew R., Higgins, Susan A., Hung, Arthur Y., Kharofa, Jordan, Krishnan, Monica S., MacDonald, Shannon M., Mancini, Brandon R., Parashar, Bhupesh, Thaker, Nikhil G., Thomas, Charles R., Jr., Viswanathan, Akila N., Wheatley, Matt, Golden, Daniel W., Braunstein, Steve, Jimenez, Rachel B., Mohindra, Pranshu, Spektor, Alexander, and Ye, Jason C.

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. TEAching Mentoring in Radiation Oncology (TEAMRO): a ROECSG GME multi-institutional pilot study on teaching mentorship skills to residents

Author

Saraf, Anurag, primary, Sim, Austin J., additional, DeLeo, Alexandra N., additional, Jones, Brianna M., additional, Sherer, Michael V, additional, Corrigan, Kelsey L., additional, Le, Amy E., additional, Lichter, Katie, additional, Razavian, Niema, additional, Vidal, Gabriel S., additional, Hutten, Ryan, additional, LaVigne, Annie, additional, Merfeld, Emily, additional, Corbin, Kimberly S., additional, Yeung, Anamaria R., additional, Fields, Emma C., additional, and Jimenez, Rachel B., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

47. List of Contributors

Author

Anscher, Mitchell S., primary, Chiu, Nicholas, additional, Chow, Edward, additional, DeAngelis, Carlo, additional, Dharmarajan, Kavita, additional, Fields, Emma C., additional, Frakes, Jessica M., additional, Hertan, Lauren, additional, Hoffe, Sarah E., additional, Jimenez, Rachel B., additional, Johnstone, Candice C., additional, Johnstone, C.A., additional, Jones, Joshua, additional, Koranteng, Lauren, additional, Krishnan, Monica S., additional, Leard, Lorriana E., additional, Lutz, Stephen, additional, Maranzano, Ernest, additional, Moryl, Natalie, additional, Pulenzas, Natalie, additional, Racsa, Margarita, additional, Rades, Dirk, additional, Rhome, Ryan, additional, Schoenfeld, Jonathan D., additional, Shih, Helen A., additional, Taylor, Allison, additional, Urdaneta, Alfredo I., additional, Venkat, Puja, additional, Wei, Randy L., additional, Wilhite, Tyler J., additional, Yu, Hsiang-Hsuan Michael, additional, and Zhang, Na, additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

48. Radiation Oncology Virtual Education Rotation (ROVER) 2.0 for Residents: Implementation and Outcomes.

Author

Sandhu, Navjot K., Rahimy, Elham, Hutten, Ryan, Shukla, Utkarsh, Rajkumar-Calkins, Anne, Miller, Jacob A., Von Eyben, Rie, Deig, Christopher R., Obeid, Jean-Pierre, Jimenez, Rachel B., Fields, Emma C., Pollom, Erqi L., and Kahn, Jenna M.

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the integration of a virtual education curriculum to support radiation oncologists in training. We report outcomes from Radiation Oncology Virtual Education Rotation (ROVER) 2.0, a supplementary virtual educational curriculum created for radiation oncology residents globally. A prospective cohort of residents completed surveys before and after the live virtual webinar sessions (pre- and post-surveys, respectively). Live sessions were structured as complex gray-zone cases across various core disease sites. Resident demographics and responses were summarized using means, standard deviations, and proportions. Nine ROVER sessions were held from October 2020 to June 2021. A total of 1487 registered residents completed the pre-survey, of which 786 attended the live case discussion and 223 completed post-surveys. A total of 479 unique radiation oncology residents (of which 95, n = 19.8%, were international attendees) from 147 institutions (national, n = 81, 55.1%; international, n = 66, 44.9%) participated in the sessions. There was similar participation across post-graduate year (PGY) 2 through 5 (range n = 86 to n = 105). Of the 122 unique resident post-surveys, nearly all reported learning through the virtual structure as "very easy" or "easy" (97.5%, n = 119). A majority rated the ROVER 2.0 educational sessions to be "valuable or "very valuable" (99.2%, n = 121), and the panelists-attendee interaction as "appropriate" (97.5%, n = 119). Virtual live didactics aimed at radiation oncology residents are feasible. These results suggest that the adoption of the ROVER 2.0 curricula may help improve radiation oncology resident education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Exploring the Perceived Educational Impact of COVID-19 on Postgraduate Training in Oncology.

Author

Giannopoulos, Eleni, Agarwal, Ankit, Croke, Jennifer, Golden, Daniel W., Hirsch, Ariel E., Jimenez, Rachel B., Malik, Nauman H., Papadakos, Janet, Quartey, Naa Kwarley, Samoil, Diana, Wu, Che Hsuan David, Ingledew, Paris-Ann, and Giuliani, Meredith

Abstract

This study sought to report the degree to which postgraduate trainees in radiation oncology perceive their education has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional online survey was administered from June to July 2020 to trainee members of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) (n = 203). Thirty-four trainees responded with a 17% response rate. Just under half of participants indicated that COVID-19 had a negative/very negative impact on training (n = 15; 46%). The majority agreed/strongly agreed that they feared family/loved ones would contract COVID-19 (n = 29, 88%), felt socially isolated from friends and family because of COVID-19 (n = 23, 70%), and had difficulty concentrating on tasks because of concerns about COVID-19 (n = 17, 52%). Changes that had a negative/very negative impact on learning included limitations to travel and networking (n = 31; 91%) and limited patient contact (n = 19; 58%). Virtual follow-ups (n = 25: 76%) and in-patient care activities (n = 12; 36%) increased. Electives were cancelled in province (n = 10; 30%), out-of-province (n = 16; 49%), and internationally (n = 15; 46%). Teaching from staff was moderately reduced to completely suppressed (n = 23, 70%) and teaching to medical students was moderately reduced to completely suppressed (n = 27, 82%). Significant changes to radiation oncology training were wrought by the pandemic, and roughly half of trainees perceive that these changes had a negative impact on training. Innovations in training delivery are needed to adapt to these new changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results