No abstract

Burnout is an important occupational problem for health care workers. We aimed to assess the burnout levels among oncology employees and to evaluate the sociodemographic and occupational factors contributing to burnout levels. The Maslach Burnout Inventory, which is designed to measure the three stages of burnout-emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA), was used. The study sample consisted of 90 participants with a median age of 34 (range 23-56). The mean levels of burnout in EE, DP and PA stages were 23.80 +/- 10.98, 5.21 +/- 4.99, and 36.23 +/- 8.05, respectively, for the entire sample. Among the 90 participants, 42, 20, and 35.6% of the employees had high levels of burnout in the EE, DP, and PA substage, respectively. Sociodemographic and occupational factors associated with higher levels of burnout included age of less than 35, being unmarried, being childless, >40 work hours per week, working on night shifts, and <10 years experience in the medicine/oncology field. Within all oncology clinics, medical oncology employees had the highest levels of burnout. Furthermore, employees who are not pleased with working in oncology field, who would like to change their specialty if they have an opportunity, and whose family and social lives have been negatively affected by their work experienced higher levels of burnout. Burnout syndrome may influence physical and mental health of the employee and affects the quality of health care as well. Therefore, several individual or organizational efforts should be considered for dealing with burnout.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose:To evaluate the radiation dose–volume effects of optic nerves and chiasm by visual psychophysical, electrophysiologic tests, and optical coherence tomography in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Materials and Methods:A series of visual tests including visual acuity, visual field, contrast sensitivity, visual evoked potential, and optical coherence tomography were administered to 20 patients with locally advanced (T3-T4) nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Volume that received 55 Gy (V55), mean dose (D mean), highest dose to 5% of the volume (D5), and maximum dose (Dmax) for optic nerves and chiasm were evaluated for each patient. Cutoff values were identified as V55: 50%, Dmean: 50 Gy, D5: 55 Gy, and Dmax: 60 Gy. The effects of radiation dose–volume on ophthalmologic tests were evaluated.Results:Ophthalmological evaluation revealed optic neuropathy with simultaneous retinopathy in 6 eyes of 4 patients and radiation retinopathy alone in both eyes of 1 patient. Regarding radiation dose–volume effects of the optic nerve, significant detrimental effect of all parameters was observed on visual acuity. Visual field and contrast sensitivity were affected significantly with V55 ≥ 50% and Dmean ≥ 50 Gy. Visual evoked potential latency was affected significantly with Dmean ≥ 50 Gy, D5 ≥ 55 Gy, and Dmax ≥ 60 Gy. For the chiasm, significant detrimental effect of all parameters was observed on visual acuity as well. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual evoked potential amplitude were not affected by any of the dose–volume parameters neither optic nerves nor chiasm.Conclusion:The volume receiving the threshold dose, mean dose, and 5% of the volume receiving the maximum dose are important parameters besides maximum dose to optic nerves and chiasm. A comprehensive ophthalmological evaluation including visual field, contrast sensitivity, visual evoked potential latency, and amplitude should be performed for these patients. Visual evoked potential latency is an objective predictor of vision loss before the onset of clinical signs.

The most important prognostic factor for overall survival was the extent of resection. Further studies with larger numbers of patients are required to confirm the prognostic factors and to obtain a better understanding of the biological behavior of TETs.

No abstract

Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) cannot take responsibility for the statements or opinions expressed by the authors of these articles. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds or experiments described herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made. For more information see the editorial ''