Search results

Elektrofahrzeuge sind die Zukunft der nachhaltigen und sauberen Mobilität. Die ehrgeizigen Ziele der Bundesregierung, wie beispielsweise Deutschland bis 2020 zum internationalen Leitmarkt für Elektromobilität zu entwickeln, spiegeln das Bestreben wider, sowohl die technologische Führerschaft im Bereich der alternativen Antriebe zu übernehmen als auch dem Klimawandel entgegenzuwirken. Die Herausforderungen sind dabei vielfältig. Im Bereich der Pannen- und Rettungsdienstleistungen fehlt es an gezielten Schulungen sowie Assistenzsystemen, um sowohl für die Helfer als auch für Betroffene eine sichere und zügige Abwicklung der vielfältigen Dienstleistungen im Kontext der Elektromobilität zu gewährleisten. Das vom BMBF geförderte Projekt SafetE-Car möchte diesen Bedarf erschließen und hat relevante Einflussfaktoren auf die Dienstleistungserbringung im Rahmen einer Erstbefragung identifiziert. Demnach spielen insbesondere die Qualifikation der Dienstleister sowie die rechtzeitige Identifikation der Antriebsart des Fahrzeuges eine entscheidende Rolle. Große Hürden stellen zudem die uneinheitlichen Schulungskonzepte sowie die bei Rettungsdienstleistern nicht vorhandene Schutzausrüstung dar.

The EC Directive 2013/59/Euratom states in article 56 that exposures of target volumes in nuclear medicine treatments shall be individually planned and their delivery appropriately verified. The Directive also mentions that medical physics experts should always be appropriately involved in those treatments. Although it is obvious that, in nuclear medicine practice, every nuclear medicine physician and physicist should follow national rules and legislation, the EANM considered it necessary to provide guidance on how to interpret the Directive statements for nuclear medicine treatments. For this purpose, the EANM proposes to distinguish three levels in compliance to the optimization principle in the directive, inspired by the indication of levels in prescribing, recording and reporting of absorbed doses after radiotherapy defined by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU): Most nuclear medicine treatments currently applied in Europe are standardized. The minimum requirement for those treatments is ICRU level 1 ("activity-based prescription and patient-averaged dosimetry"), which is defined by administering the activity within 10% of the intended activity, typically according to the package insert or to the respective EANM guidelines, followed by verification of the therapy delivery, if applicable.Non-standardized treatments are essentially those in developmental phase or approved radiopharmaceuticals being used off-label with significantly (> 25% more than in the label) higher activities. These treatments should comply with ICRU level 2 ("activity-based prescription and patient-specific dosimetry"), which implies recording and reporting of the absorbed dose to organs at risk and optionally the absorbed dose to treatment regions.The EANM strongly encourages to foster research that eventually leads to treatment planning according to ICRU level 3 ("dosimetry-guided patient-specific prescription and verification"), whenever possible and relevant. Evidence for superiority of therapy ...

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.