Institution
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Healthcare•New York, New York, United States•
About: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is a healthcare organization based out in New York, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & Population. The organization has 30293 authors who have published 65381 publications receiving 4462534 citations. The organization is also known as: MSKCC & New York Cancer Hospital.
Topics: Cancer, Population, Breast cancer, Prostate cancer, Radiation therapy
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Surgical morbidity following radical cystectomy is significant and, when strict reporting guidelines are incorporated, higher than previously published.
1,142 citations
••
Research Triangle Park1, Harvard University2, Yale University3, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation4, University of Pennsylvania5, Columbia University6, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill7, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center8, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences9, University of Southern California10, Janssen Pharmaceutica11, Johnson & Johnson12, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center13
TL;DR: The goal of this article is to articulate the 4 central challenges facing clinical research at present--public participation, information systems, workforce training, and funding; to make recommendations about how they might be addressed by particular stakeholders; and to invite a broader, participatory dialogue with a view to improving the overall performance of the US clinical research enterprise.
Abstract: Medical scientists and public health policy makers are increasingly concerned that the scientific discoveries of the past generation are failing to be translated efficiently into tangible human benefit. This concern has generated several initiatives, including the Clinical Research Roundtable at the Institute of Medicine, which first convened in June 2000. Representatives from a diverse group of stakeholders in the nation’s clinical research enterprise have collaborated to address the issues it faces. The context of clinical research is increasingly encumbered by high costs, slow results, lack of funding, regulatory burdens, fragmented infrastructure, incompatible databases, and a shortage of qualified investigators and willing participants. These factors have contributed to 2 major obstacles, or translational blocks: impeding the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical studies and of clinical studies into medical practice and health decision making in systems of care. Considering data from across the entire health care system, it has become clear that these 2 translational blocks can be removed only by the collaborative efforts of multiple system stakeholders. The goal of this article is to articulate the 4 central challenges facing clinical research at present—public participation, information systems, workforce training, and funding; to make recommendations about how they might be addressed by particular stakeholders; and to invite a broader, participatory dialogue with a viewtoimprovingtheoverallperformanceoftheUSclinicalresearchenterprise.
1,142 citations
••
Johns Hopkins University1, American Society of Clinical Oncology2, Virginia Commonwealth University3, Duke University4, Harvard University5, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center6, City of Hope National Medical Center7, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai8, Northwestern University9, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship10
TL;DR: It is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden.
Abstract: Purpose American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO’s membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. Clinical Context Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient’s illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. Recent Data Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care—when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care—leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel’s expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE. ASCO’s provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO’s PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.
1,141 citations
••
TL;DR: A consensus panel was convened comprising 13 specialists actively involved in the treatment of patients with amyloidosis, and a consensus was developed defining each organ involved and the criteria for response.
Abstract: We undertook this study to develop uniformly accepted criteria for the definition of organ involvement and response for patients on treatment protocols for immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis (AL). A consensus panel was convened comprising 13 specialists actively involved in the treatment of patients with amyloidosis. Institutional criteria were submitted from each, and a consensus was developed defining each organ involved and the criteria for response. Specific criteria have been developed with agreed on definitions of organ and hematologic response as a result of discussions at the 10th International Symposium on Amyloid and Amyloidosis held in Tours, France, April 2004. These criteria now form the working definition of involvement and response for the purposes of future data collection and reporting. We report criteria that centers can now use to define organ involvement and uniform response criteria for reporting outcomes in patients with light-chain AL.
1,139 citations
••
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre2, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center3, Hebron University4, European Institute of Oncology5, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute6, University of Manchester7, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart8, French Institute of Health and Medical Research9, Auckland City Hospital10, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital11, Ohio State University12, Johns Hopkins University13, University of Washington14, University of California, Los Angeles15, University of Glasgow16, Royal Melbourne Hospital17, Foundation Medicine18, University College London19, Ghent University Hospital20
TL;DR: This trial assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity.
1,139 citations
Authors
Showing all 30708 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Gordon H. Guyatt | 231 | 1620 | 228631 |
Edward Giovannucci | 206 | 1671 | 179875 |
Irving L. Weissman | 201 | 1141 | 172504 |
Craig B. Thompson | 195 | 557 | 173172 |
Joan Massagué | 189 | 408 | 149951 |
Gad Getz | 189 | 520 | 247560 |
Chris Sander | 178 | 713 | 233287 |
Richard B. Lipton | 176 | 2110 | 140776 |
Richard K. Wilson | 173 | 463 | 260000 |
George P. Chrousos | 169 | 1612 | 120752 |
Stephen J. Elledge | 162 | 406 | 112878 |
Murray F. Brennan | 161 | 925 | 97087 |
Lewis L. Lanier | 159 | 554 | 86677 |
David W. Bates | 159 | 1239 | 116698 |
Dan R. Littman | 157 | 426 | 107164 |