Evaluation of a stage II screening protocol for prostate cancer

In 2003, prostate cancer (PCa) is estimated to be the most commonly diagnosed cancer and third leading cause of cancer death in Canada. During PCa population screening, approximately 25% of patients with a normal digital rectal examination (DRE) and intermediate serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level have PCa. Since all patients typically undergo biopsy, it is expected that approximately 75% of these procedures are unnecessary. The purpose of this study was to compare the degree of efficacy of clinical tests and algorithms in stage II screening for PCa while preventing unnecessary biopsies from occurring. The sample consisted of 201 consecutive men who were suspected of PCa based on the results of a DRE and serum PSA. These men were referred for venipuncture and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Clinical tests included TRUS, agespecific reference range PSA (Age-PSA), prostate specific antigen density (PSAD), and free-to-total prostate specific antigen ratio (%fPSA). Clinical results were evaluated individually and within algorithms. Cutoffs of 0.12 and 0.15 ng/ml/cc were employed for PSAD. Cutoffs that would provide a minimum sensitivity of 0.90 and 0.95, respectively were utilized for %fPSA. Statistical analysis included ROC curve analysis, calculated sensitivity (Sens), specificity (Spec), and positive likelihood ratio (LR), with corresponding confidence intervals (Cl). The %fPSA, at a 23% cutoff ({ Sens=0.92; CI, 0.06}, {Spec=0.4l; CI, 0.09}, {LR=1.56; CI, O.ll}), proved to be the most efficacious independent clinical test. The combination of PSAD (cutoff 0.15 ng/ml/cc) and %fPSA (cutoff 23%) ({Sens=0.93; CI, 0.06}, {Spec=0.38; CI, 0.08}, {LR=1.50; CI, 0.10}) was the most efficacious clinical algorithm. This study advocates the use of %fPSA at a cutoff of 23% when screening patients with an intermediate serum PSA and benign DRE.

Letting go : a self-study utilizing critical literacy as method in improving my practice /

This is a Self-study about my role as a teacher, driven by the question: "How do I improve my practice?" (Whitehead, 1989)? In this study, I explored the discomfort that I had with the way that I had been teaching. Specifically, I worked to uncover the reasons behind my obsessive (mis)management of my students. I wrote of how I came to give my Self permission for this critique: how I came to know that all knowledge is a construction, and that my practice, too, is a construction. I grounded this journey within my experiences. I constructed these experiences in narrative fomi in order to reach a greater understanding of how I came to be the teacher I initially was. I explored metaphors that impacted my practice, re-constructed them, and saw more clearly the assumptions and influences that have guided my teaching. I centred my inquiry into my teaching within an Action Reflection methodology, bon-owing Jack Whitehead's (1989) term to describe my version of Action Research. I relied upon the embedded cyclical pattern of Action Reflection to understand my teaching Self: beginning from a critical moment, reflecting upon it, and then taking appropriate action, and continuing in this way, working to improve my practice. To understand these critical moments, I developed a personal definition of critical literacy. I then tumed this definition inward. In treating my practice as a textual production, I applied critical literacy as a framework in coming to know and understand the construction that is my teaching. I grounded my thesis journey within my Self, positioning my study within my experiences of being a grade 1 teacher struggling to teach critical literacy. I then repositioned my journey to that of a grade 1 teacher struggling to use critical literacy to improve my practice. This journey, then, is about the transition from critical literacyit as-subject to critical literacy-as-instmctional-method in improving my practice. I joumeyed inwards, using a critical moment to build new understandings, leading me to the next critical moment, and continued in this cyclical way. I worked in this meandering yet deliberate way to reach a new place in my teaching: one that is more inclusive of all the voices in my room. I concluded my journey with a beginning: a beginning of re-visioning my practice. In telling the stories of my journey, of my teaching, of my experiences, I changed into the teacher that I am more comfortable with. I've come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element in the classroom. It's my personal approach that creates the climate. It's my daily mood that makes the weather As a teacher, I possess a tremendous power to make a person's life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humour, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated and a person humanized or de-humanized. (Ginott, as cited in Buscaglia, 2002, p. 22)