Best oncology books according to redditors

I strongly agree with the commenters above that becoming an "expert" with little formal training is very optimistic. However, I think there is value in being a "local expert", a kind of local maximum of expertise within your organization.

Do you at least have a science background? That certainly helps. For the immunology piece, I recommend How the Immune System Works, a lovely short and approachable introductory text by Lauren Somparyac. I also agree that Weinberg is a good place to start for a brief intro to cancer biology.

For a perspective on the cancer immunotherapy field I recommend Steven Rosenberg's The Transformed Cell, which is a first person account of his pioneering research in the field. He's also written a nice summary of cancer biology with two other authors called a Primer of the Molecular Biology of Cancer.

Tell your advisor. Their job is to figure out the best possible way for you to learn.

Everyone will say TG reports. I've found if I know something about a topic, a TG report is a great way to learn more. If I didn’t know much, they weren’t helpful.

If you learn by reading I suggest Practical Radiation Oncology Physics by Dieterich et al

Tumor Board Review happens to be the name of a quite decent text on the subject, in addition to the previously mentioned NCCN guidelines. I believe Susan Urba and one of her fellows (an attending himself now, in FL last I knew) wrote the chapter on esophageal cancer.

ASPPH | Summer of Public Health: Reading Recommendations

Not on the list:

The Blue Death

Mountains Beyond Mountains

Parasite Rex

The Coming Plague

Spitting Blood

As for DiPiro, the newest edition is the 10th edition released in December 2016

You are being unreasonable.

The point of the scan was not really to evaluate the palpable abnormalities, it was to look for internal signs of disease (like a mediastinal mass, an enlarged spleen, bony lesions, etc). Having seen none of those things, you should be reassured.

Now the lymph nodes do sound abnormal both in size and density/enhancement, but the number of conditions that might cause that could fill a book like this one:

Atlas of lymph node pathology

So further evaluation with biopsy may be necessary​.

Everything seems to be in order. Hope none of this amounts to anything!

Sorry to take so long to reply! I'm defending my diss in a few weeks, so things are busy.

I am not very familiar with the literature on Norse colonists specifically, but I've just looked up the dates of the pre-Columbian New World skeletal TB cases. From Fig 4.2 in Roberts & Buikstra 2003 (I think this link will let you scroll to p 194 to see the figure), there are only five New World skeletal TB cases currently known from 200 - 999 CE, then they increase after 1000. Of course, the number of skeletons with lesions isn't necessarily directly translatable to the number of people with the disease, but the timing is interesting with respect to the Norse, isn't it?

This has all the important tumors.

http://www.amazon.com/Orthopaedic-Knowledge-Update-Musculoskeletal-Orthopedic/dp/089203968X/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=419AoNMkpYL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR124%2C160_&refRID=1WB6ARY5FCV2NXR0WF5Q

Hmm. Usually our books are for residents/fellows/practicing anatomical and clinical pathologists, and aren't intended for an undergraduate level, let alone a high school level. Would you be interested anyway?

...maybe you'd like this book? it's a handbook intended for residents. http://www.amazon.com/The-Washington-Manual-Surgical-Pathology/dp/1451114362/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

also /u/lucilly be sure to check out Surviving "Terminal" Cancer.

I've been working on an oncology floor for around a year and a half and decided to take the exam in April. It was very difficult. I studied on my days off for around two months using the ONS Study Guide for the Core Curriculum for Oncology Nursing. Much of the information is more in depth than would be required on my floor, but my practice has improved markedly since taking the exam.

This book might be worth looking at:http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Technology-Radiation-Therapy/dp/1930524447/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=

It was designed for therapists, not physicists, so it is not that technical, but it is actually readable and good for reviewing and figuring out what areas to review more.

Also, if you read Khan and the TG reports, that's almost all of the information you need. Wepassed is helpful for seeing what types (and how) questions are asked.

Good Luck.

The Biological Basis of Nursing: Cancer

Thats exactly why I loved it as well
GVHD manifests differently depending on where it is here's a link that's a pretty good overview https://www.oncolink.org/resources/article.cfm?id=947
Most I would say were AML but there was a wide variety it will depend on the population of your community as well
on our hem/onc side (we had two units that were together split by a double set of doors but same nurses/manager) it was primarily leukemia, AML, some CNS, neuroblastoma (a lot of neuro onc is managed outpatient), rhabdo, osteo
when I was hired on my floor I had oncology experience from being on a pediatric float team but I took a 2 day class taught by my nurse educator and some senior nurses there was a BMT class as well but thats really it one thing thats helpful is to read ALL the hospitals policies you can and know where to find them for the Onc/ SCT unit (they should have specific ones) also you can read the children's oncology group's family handbook its what we gave all our patients after diagnosis and used it for the basis of our teaching with families you can get it free on kindle
https://www.amazon.com/Childrens-Oncology-Group-Family-Handbook-ebook/dp/B00V5HH8UM?ie=UTF8&keywords=pediatric%20oncology%20family&qid=1464573504&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
I did feel autonomous in that I felt very capable of caring for my patients and advocating for them, however I firmly believe that nursing is a team sport and you're never alone always utilize your peers for advice or just bouncing ideas off of its always beneficial someone will always have a different way of looking at things that could expand yours
I did thats one thing about Onc and stem cell I think its a specific breed of person they really really care about the kids and are always willing to do whatever it takes the whole team is amazing and it really is a team the MDs and doctors work together and really trust each other and want the best outcome for the kids and families
where are you working/wanting to work?

The standard of care has a 25% 2 year survival rate according to my wife's neuro oncologist. My wife is 26 months out from her initial diagnosis and surgery, she's had a second surgery for a recurrence last January and is currently having Avastin infusions which seem to be working. Here is a site that has a document that summarizes the current treatment options and other approaches:

https://www.virtualtrials.com/noteworth.cfm

I highly recommend Ben Williams document Treatment Options For Malignant Gliomas - Aug 2017 Update.

It is found on this page:

https://www.virtualtrials.com/williams.cfm

I just finished reading Dr. Williams book about his glioblastoma survival:

"Surviving Terminal Cancer: Clinical Trials, Drug Cocktails, and Other Treatments Your Oncologist Won't Tell You About"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FDWPQWC/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

He has some good criticisms of the standard medical approach. His ideas of throwing everything practical at fighting the tumor seems logical. I'm trying to get my wife to add to all the non medical supplements and things she takes, in addition to the Avastin.

There apparently is a film related to this work, I haven't seen it yet, but it looks interesting.

https://www.thebraintumourcharity.org/brain-tumour-diagnosis-treatment/resources/surviving-terminal-cancer-film/

​

Best of luck to you, don't rely on the statistical predictions and fight your own fight.

https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Terminal-Cancer-Treatments-Oncologist-ebook/dp/B00FDWPQWC/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=#nav-subnav
Its available here on kindle for free if you have one. If not, I'll gift you a year of gold for getting a copy of the book and recording it.

> And there again is your problem because you can have different levels of energy of photons and electrons. A fact which is destroying your own case.

Incorrect. You stated, plainly, that photons are more damaging than electrons. That's false. Photons and electrons of equivalent energy have identical relative biological effectiveness. The absorbed dose is a function of energy, not particle, when comparing photons and electrons.

In fact, the way that ionizing photons cause damage to tissue is by transferring their energy to electrons, which scatter and then interact with the atoms in the cells. The either directly ionize atoms in the DNA, or they ionize atoms in H2O molecules, creating free radicals which then interact directly with DNA. The bottom line here is that it's electrons which are ultimately responsible for cell damage. The photons just scatter electrons. If this is true, it stands to reason that electrons of equivalent energy will have the same biological effect as photons of equivalent energy. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole time.

>Notice the change in what your original point is?

No, what do you think it is?

>In the past? The rest of the article and everything else contradicts what's generally accepted in the hard sciences. 2nd NASA source, 3rd source: Gamma ray, electromagnetic radiation of the shortest wavelength and highest energy
As I pointed out before - There is a small overlap in X-ray and Gamma ray radiation but I'm not surprised non-physicists in the medical fields would try to fuck up physics jargon they don't understand.

This is the trouble with relying on websites whose intended audience is the general public. The NASA sources are simplified and don't go into the distinctions between x-rays and gamma rays (which is, again, the source of the photons and not the energy). The third source actually does state that gamma rays are produced by nuclear decay and annihilation reactions, which supports what I've been telling you.

Here are my own sources: two textbooks used for educating radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and other professionals who work in radiation oncology. Both books are written by PhD physicists who have decades of experience working in the fields of radiation oncology, medical physics, and radiation protection.

The first source: The Physics & Technology of Radiation Therapy, by Patrick N. McDermott, PhD and Colin G. Orton, PhD

I took a photo of the relevant section from the book: http://i.imgur.com/kIaJyKd.jpg

Amazon link to the book so you can see more information about the book and its authors: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Technology-Radiation-Therapy/dp/1930524447

The second source: The Physics of Radiation Therapy (3rd edition), by Faiz M. Khan, PhD

Photo of relevant section: http://i.imgur.com/0EOsWik.jpg

Amazon link (4th edition because the 3rd edition is no longer sold): https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Radiation-Therapy-Faiz-Khan/dp/0781788560/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495904187&sr=1-1&keywords=physics+of+radiation+therapy

If you aren't satisfied with that because those are sources from medical physicists, here's another source from the MIT Department of Physics (see page 2) http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp31.pdf

>The name “x ray” is generally given to a photon if it
is emitted by a free or bound electron and has an energy
in the range from about 0.1 keV to about 100 keV.
Photons emitted directly by nuclei are generally called
gamma rays even if their energy is in the conventional
x ray range.

Another source, Idaho State University http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/terms.htm

> Gamma rays are electromagnetic waves or photons emitted from the nucleus (center) of an atom.
>X Rays are electromagnetic waves or photons not emitted from the nucleus, but normally emitted by energy changes in electrons. These energy changes are either in electron orbital shells that surround an atom or in the process of slowing down such as in an X-ray machine.

Across the field of physics, "gamma" is used to refer to photons produced by nuclear decay and annihilation reactions, whereas "x" is used to refer to photons produced by electron transitions.

>I get it. You are in medicine and think because your local jargon is confused it should affect the hard sciences.

False distinction. Medical physics and health physics are hard sciences and are subfields of physics. Medical physicists are just physicists who have been trained specifically for for the application of physics in the field of medicine. In my experience, many (most?) practicing medical physicists are people who studied in traditional physics departments and then transitioned as post-docs into medical physics.

>Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Appeals to authority are actually sometimes valid. For instance, if the authority is recognized as an expert on the subject matter, their statements about the subject matter are generally considered to be valid. That doesn't mean that they are infallible, of course. An invalid appeal to authority would be trying to use the opinion of a physicist on something outside their expertise, like molecular biology. The way you're using this "appeal to authority" claim is to say that my sources are invalid because citing my sources is an appeal to authority. That cuts against you as much as it cuts against me.

>gamma radiation is defined in the hard sciences as based on the energy of the emission and not the source.

I've proven this wrong time after time. My sources are textbooks written for physics professionals and written by PhD physicists. Your sources are public education websites on the NASA website. I'm not trying to disparage those sources, because they have perfectly good uses, but you should not try to rely on those for an in-depth discussion of radiation physics.

>The fact is that ionizing photons released in nuclear decay can range from NONE to keV to MeV+ and the damage done is dependent on the energy released and penetration potential. Again - bumper cars vs trucks.

Yes, photons produced by nuclear decay can have MeV energies. So can beta particles produced by nuclear decay. That's why my point about equivalent RBE stands. The relative biological effectiveness of photons is the same as that of electrons. Please try to prove me wrong.

>And all of your jargon foo is a philosophical distraction from the main point which you have abandoned is that the energy of the photon or electrons in nuclear decay can vary widely and that determines amount of damage done.

Dude, I've never disagreed on this point. Of course the damage is dependent on energy. My point is that photons are not inherently more damaging than electrons, which is what you said. Photons and electrons of equivalent energy have the same relative biological effectiveness.

I'm going to repeat that.

Photons and electrons of equivalent energy have the same relative biological effectiveness.

If you can agree to that, then I think we're done here. Regardless, this will have to be my last reply. This has become too time consuming and this discussion really has little benefit to either of us, and I doubt anyone else is reading at this point.

https://www.amazon.com//dp/1523752343/

L'editoria USA è piena di libri che dicono che il cancro è una benedizione.

https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Blessing-Jerry-K-Wilson/dp/1499389477

https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Was-Blessing-Yolanda-Commack/dp/0985541008/

https://www.amazon.com/Vocabulary-Joy-Celebrating-Blessings-Cancer/dp/0692788573/