Proton beam writing a progress review meeting

Andrew Bettiol Andrew A. Venugopal Rao a, J.

Proton beam writing a progress review meeting

Proton treatment for prostate cancer results in few complications Our Review Summary This story provides a very unbalanced look at one highly-promoted treatment option for men with prostate cancer. It reported on a talk given at a meeting meaning that the information has not undergone rigorous peer review.

Recommended for you

Journalists need to understand that talks at scientific meetings may not be ready for prime time — especially not without any independent expert analysis. The story fell short on evaluating the evidence, on quantifying harms, and on giving context and comparisons with other approaches.

So did many TV station websites. Why This Matters Men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer need to understand how various treatment options compare in men like themselves in order to make a decision that is right for them.

There have been many new technologies in recent years robots, cyberknife, proton beam that are being aggressively marketed to patients with early-stage cancer despite limited evidence for their benefits and harms.

Infrastructure - Atomic Rockets

Criteria Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention? Not Satisfactory The story did not include information about the percentage of men who appeared to be free of prostate cancer after treatment. Instead, the focus of the story was more on the percentage of men who did not experience the complications of complete incontinence or the majority of men who self-reported being sexually active after treatment.

It also failed to provide readers with a critical piece of information — what percentage of men receiving this treatment went on to have metastatic prostate cancer. Since this is the outcome the treatment is aimed at preventing, it is the potential harm that is key to evaluating its benefit.

The story briefly alludes to men in the trial taking androgen deprivation therapy ADT. Presumarly some of the ADT was provided along with radiation for high-risk patients standard recommendationbut patients who needed ADT after treatment would represent treatment failures.

Because no information is provided on the number of patients receiving ADT or the indications, it is difficult to interpret results.

Category Archive :jpho-online Obtained enormous global visibility and tremendous response from the authors and readers from all over the world inspired the publisher to maintain reputed Open Access Journals in various scientific disciplines. The journals have over 15 million readers and the reputation and success earned can be attributed to the strong Editorial Board which contains over 50, eminent personalities that ensure a rapid, qualitative and quick review process.

Sexually active does not necessarily mean having erections sufficient for intercourse—a standard metric—so this result is also difficult to interpret. Finally, 18 months may not be sufficient time to determine treatment complications—particularly sexual dysfunction—which may not appear for at least several years after radiation.

These are not merely academic concerns. They are issues a story should take into account before publishing a headline as a statement of fact: Not Satisfactory The story reported on results of a study presented at a meeting without mentioning the nature of the study.

A major problem with the study is the lack of a comparison group making it difficult to interpret the validity of the findings. Another problem is that the article or perhaps investigators did not report the proportion of men who were actually followed for 18 months.

Having poor outcomes is often a reason that subjects do not return for follow up. Dropping back to the big picture, any story based on a talk at a scientific meeting, as this was one was, should include some discussion of the limitations of drawing conclusions from the talk.

Proton beam writing: A progress review

Too Much, Too Soon? Because the findings have not undergone final peer review, they have yet to be independently vetted, and may change. As you can see, it would only take about 25 more words to address this concern.OMICS International publishes + Open Access Journals in the fields of Clinical, Medical, Life Science, Pharma, Environmental, Engineering and Management.

The annual meeting is a chance to conduct a global review of the project – and global is the word, because, as project leader Lucio Rossi observes, "the High-Luminosity LHC is a worldwide.

Proton beam writing: A progress review - CORE

Clinical Commissioning of a Pencil Beam Scanning Treatment Planning System for Proton Therapy Jatinder Saini, Ning Cao, Stephen R. Bowen, Miguel Herrera . Find the latest business news on Wall Street, jobs and the economy, the housing market, personal finance and money investments and much more on ABC News.

proton beam writing a progress review meeting

The proton beam writing technique is a direct write lithographic technique that is being actively developed at the Centre for Ion Beam Applications, National University of Singapore for microphotonic applications.

The technique utilizes a highly. Outcomes of Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Retinoblastoma With Vitreous Seeds. Progress and Challenges” Meeting. 23 September, The review presented in 2 parts includes the descriptions of the mechanisms that underlie their effects, the manner by which these agents are identified and evaluated and discussion of some of the.

Recent developments in Geant4 - ScienceDirect