Multi-touch accceptance: perceived disorientation and consequences on task engagement

The research project takes place within the technology acceptability framework which tries to understand the use made of new technologies, and concentrates more specifically on the factors that influence multi-touch devices’ (MTD) acceptance and intention to use. Why be interested in MTD? Nowadays, this technology is used in all kinds of human activities, e.g. leisure, study or work activities (Rogowski and Saeed, 2012). However, the handling or the data entry by means of gestures on multi-touch-sensitive screen imposes a number of constraints and consequences which remain mostly unknown (Park and Han, 2013). Currently, few researches in ergonomic psychology wonder about the implications of these new human-computer interactions on task fulfillment.This research project aims to investigate the cognitive, sensori-motor and motivational processes taking place during the use of those devices. The project will analyze the influences of the use of gestures and the type of gesture used: simple or complex gestures (Lao, Heng, Zhang, Ling, and Wang, 2009), as well as the personal self-efficacy feeling in the use of MTD on task engagement, attention mechanisms and perceived disorientation (Chen, Linen, Yen, and Linn, 2011) when confronted to the use of MTD. For that purpose, the various above-mentioned concepts will be measured within a usability laboratory (U-Lab) with self-reported methods (questionnaires) and objective indicators (physiological indicators, eye tracking). Globally, the whole research aims to understand the processes at stakes, as well as advantages and inconveniences of this new technology, to favor a better compatibility and adequacy between gestures, executed tasks and MTD. The conclusions will allow some recommendations for the use of the DMT in specific contexts (e.g. learning context).

Impact of tumor board recommendations on treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Background/Aims: To identify physician selection factors in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer and how treatment outcome is affected by Tumor Board recommendations. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 213 patients treated for locally advanced head and neck cancer in a single institution was performed. All treatments followed Tumor Board recommendations: 115 patients had chemotherapy and radiation, and 98 patients received postoperative radiation. Patient characteristics, treatment toxicity, locoregional control and survival between these two treat- ment groups were compared. Patient survival was compared with survival data reported in randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Results: There were no differences in comorbidity factors, and T or N stages between the two groups. A statistically significant number of patients with oropharyngeal and oral cavity tumors had chemoradiation and postoperative radiation, respectively (p < 0.0001). Grade 3-4 toxicities during treatment were 48 and 87% for the postoperative radiation and chemoradiation groups, respectively (p = 0.0001). There were no differences in survival, locoregional recurrences and distant metastases between the two groups. Patient survival was comparable to survival rates reported by randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Conclusion: Disease sites remained the key determining factor for treatment selection. Multidisciplinary approaches provided optimal treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer, with overall survival in these patients being comparable to that reported in randomized clinical trials. Copyright © 2008 S. Karger AG.

Cancer and fertility preservation: International recommendations from an expert meeting

In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians. In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of "cancer and fertility preservation". A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation. Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations.