Fluoroscopy in the Diagnosis of Cancer - Research Proposal Example

How effective is the use of fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of cancer Grade (March. 12, How effective is the use of fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of cancer Diagnosis of cancer has had a long history in the medical profession. However, with inefficiency, ineffectiveness and inconveniences associated with traditional diagnostic procedures, more new technologies have been developed to help in the proper diagnosis of different types of cancer (Faulkner & Vaño, 2001). Nevertheless, while such procedures have helped the medical fraternity in treating numerous cases of cancer, certain side effects have been associated with the application of the different technologies. Therefore, this research study has the intention of establishing the appropriateness of fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of different types of cancer, when compared to other applicable medical technologies. Research question How effective is the use of fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract in comparison to CT and MRI? Project Aims and Objectives The major aim and objective of this research project is to establish the effectiveness of applying fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract, when the effectiveness of the diagnosis technology is compared to CT and MRI. Specific aims and objectives 1. To establish the effectiveness of fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract 2. To establish the possible negative implications of the application of fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of cancer in patients 3. To establish the possible negative implications of the application of fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of cancer in health professionals 4. To compare the effectiveness of fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract to the effectiveness of CT and MRI in diagnosing the same cancer 5. To finally establish which cancer diagnosis technology is more appropriate for the diagnosis of cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract Brief summary of proposed study Fluoroscopy is a health technology whose application has enabled physicians to undertake the diagnosis of major health problems with greater ease. This is owing to the fact that this method enables the physicians to observe and assess the body’s inner system, when the body is actually functioning (Becker, 2010). Nevertheless, while this health technology is so crucial for the health fraternity, fluoroscopy is associated with the exposure of radiation ions to the patients, which may in turn cause negative health implications. On the other hand, CT and MRI are other health technologies that act as alternatives to fluoroscopy in the assessment of different forms of cancer inpatients. Therefore, this research project seeks to establish the most effective technology between fluoroscopy on the one hand, and CT and MRI on the other hand. Further, the effectiveness of the treatment of cancer rests in the ability of the cancer to be detected at a very early stage, so that the patients can be enrolled to a treatment program early enough before the cancerous cells spread to the rest of the body (Belafsky & Kuhn, 2014). Therefore, the proposed research project also seeks to evaluate how effective fluoroscopy is in detecting cancer at an early stage. The effectiveness of fluoroscopy will also be compared to the effectiveness of early detection for both CT and MRI. The research project will entail the assessment of records from different specialized cancer treatment hospitals, where patients undergo the diagnosis and treatment of cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract. The research will use the recorded data of the diagnosis and treatment of the gastrointestinal tract cancer patients, whose diagnosis has been done through fluoroscopy, CT scan and MRI methods. The effectiveness of each method will be determined based on the number of patients who have had the gastrointestinal tract cancer successfully diagnosed and treated using the three different health technologies. The effectiveness of each health technology will be compared against one another, to arrive at a conclusion of which technology is most effective in diagnosing the cancer of gastrointestinal tract. Literature Review Fluoroscopy is an imaging technology that applies advanced X-ray technology to enable the physicians obtain real-time image of the internal body organs (Cirocco & Rusin, 1996). Fluoroscopy as a health technology has been extensively applied, owing to its ability to enable the physicians diagnose and investigate the internal body organs when they are actually functioning (Deutschberger, 1955). Despite the high rating that his method has received from the health practitioners, there has been increasing public concern regarding the dangers posed by the ionizing radiations that are produced by fluoroscopy to both the patients and the health professionals (Faulkner & Vaño, 2001). The possible increase in the number of cancerous cells within the organs that are exposed to the fluoroscopy procedures makes it necessary to assess the radiation risks associated with the procedures, while also determining the applicable strategies to control the exposure of both the patients and the health care providers (Becker, 2010). It is based on the risk associated with radiation exposure that other health technologies have been considered in place of fluoroscopy for the diagnosis of different conditions of the internal body organs, as well as for the assessment and diagnosis of cancer (Wagner, Archer & Cohen, 2000). Before the 1950s, the risks posed by the application of different diagnostic methods in health were not effectively recorded. However, starting 1956, different epidemiologic studies have linked the diagnostic x-rays with the risk of increasing cancer in patients, while mild risks have also been associated with the health care providers involved in the diagnostic procedures (Great Britain, 2000). The effectiveness of a cancer diagnostic mechanism rests in its ability to detect the cancer in its very early stages, and then have the patient start the treatments early (Miller, Balter, Noonan & Georgia, 2002). The major problem with the cancer of the stomach is that it produces only few or only very slight symptoms, such that the patients suffering from the cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract do not seek diagnosis or treatment early enough (Mettler, Koenig., Wagner & Kelsey, 2002). In this respect, by the time the patients are seeking for intervention, the cancer has already advanced to the levels of demanding surgical cure (Hall & Giaccia 2006). To avoid undertaking any surgical procedures on patients suffering from the cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract, the only way out is to diagnose the cancer early enough and have the cancer removed much earlier than usual. A wide review of available literature has indicated that the best, if not the only method that is applicable in excluding asymptomatic gastric cancer is the fluoroscopy of the stomach (Javors, 1996). Since 1980, there has been a 600% increase in radiation exposure to the US population (Houston & Davis, 2001). The increased exposure to radiations for the US population at such a higher rate has increased the health benefits for the population immensely. Nevertheless, this increased exposure has also increased the potential cancer risks. Most of the potential risk of the cancer increment from the radiation exposure is traceable in the diagnostic radiologic procedures (Great Britain, 2000). Proposed research approach/method The proposed research project seeks to apply a qualitative research method, which will entail a combination of both interviews with the health care providers and also analysis of the already recorded documents of the cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract. The choice of the qualitative research method is informed by the fact that the proposed research project seeks to investigate the characteristics of the cancer diagnosis technological techniques in a more in-depth analysis, which can be achieved through the application of a qualitative methodology. The study will take place in five different cancer-specialized treatment hospitals and centers. The focus of the interview and the cancer record analysis will be on the applicable three different technologies of diagnosing cancer namely fluoroscopy, CT and MRI. The study will recruit on average 20 cancer specialists from each health facility, totaling to a hundred interview participants. The study will apply purposive sampling as the method of recruiting both the specialized cancer facilities and the cancer specialist participants in the study. Purposive sampling is selected as the method of selecting both the participant cancer specialists and the specialized-cancer health facilities, since purpose sampling is selective and judgmental, thus capable of choosing only high-caliber cancer specialists and highly rated specialized-cancer health facilities as the samples for investigation. The data obtained from the interview and cancer record review will be analyzed under both the regression and correlation analysis. The choice of these methods of analysis is informed by the fact that the two analytical methods enable the determination of the strength of the relationships between different cancer diagnosis methods and their effectiveness. Justification for the work and explain the benefit to radiography Since the X-rays were discovered in the late 19th century, there has been a great experimental and radiologic transformation that has changed the practice of medicine for the better (Levine, Ramchandani, & Rubesin, 2012). However, after the X-rays were first discovered for radiologic imaging, both the patients and the physicians started to develop negative implications of cancerous cells in the regions of the body where they had a radiation exposure (Linet, et al., 2012). Further, the cancer of the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract is rarely discoverable at its early stages, due to few or slightly moderate symptoms at the early stage of the cancer. In this respect, the study is very fundamental in defining the effectiveness of the fluoroscopy, MRI and CT, with a view to determining which of these technologies is more effective in detecting the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract cancer early enough, while at the same time having the least radiation implications on both the patients and the health care providers. It is therefore very essential to undertakethis study, since it will define the most suitable method of diagnosing cancer with minimal side effects, thus helping radiography in focusing on developing and advancing the most effective method of diagnosing the cancer in the upper (GIT) gastrointestinal tract, in ways that will limit its associated negative side effects. References Becker, D. (January 01, 2010). Fluoroscopy. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25, 3.) Belafsky, P. C., & Kuhn, M. A. (2014). The clinicians guide to swallowing fluoroscopy. Cirocco, W. C., & Rusin, L. C. (November 01, 1996). Fluoroscopy: A valuable ally during difficult colonoscopy. Surgical Endoscopy, 10, 11, 1080-1084. Deutschberger, O. (1955). Fluoroscopy in diagnostic roentgenology. Philadelphia: Saunders. Faulkner,K. & Vaño,E. (2001). Deterministic Effects in Interventional Radiology. Rad Prot Dosim; 94:95-8. Fluoroscopy. (January 01, 2003). 235-250. Great Britain. (January 01, 2000). A comparative report of multi-purpose C-arm fluoroscopy systems. Hall, E. & Giaccia A.J. (2006). Milestones in the radiation sciences. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1-4. Houston, J. D., & Davis, M. (2001). Fundamentals of fluoroscopy. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co. Javors, B. R. (1996). Manual of GI fluoroscopy. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers. Levine, M. S., Ramchandani, P., & Rubesin, S. E. (2012). Practical fluoroscopy of the GI and GU tracts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linet, M.S. et al. (2012). Cancer Risks Associated With External Radiation from Diagnostic Imaging Procedures. CA CANCER J CLIN 62:75–100. Mettler, F., Koenig T.R., Wagner L.K. & Kelsey CA. (2002). Radiation injuries after fluoroscopic procedures. Seminars Ultrasound, CT, MRI 23:428-42. Miller D.L, Balter S., Noonan P.T. & Georgia J.D. (2002). Minimizing radiation-induced skin injury in interventional radiology procedures. Radiology 225:329-36. Wagner L.K., Archer B.R. & Cohen, J. (2000). Management of patient skin dose in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:23-33 Read More