Intern, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Internal Medicine (2017)
MD, The Commonwealth Medical College, (2016)
AB, Harvard College, Psychology-Social and Cognitive Neuroscience (2010)
Selected Honors and Awards
American Brachytherapy Society Resident Travel Grant Award (2019)
John Peterson Education Award (2018)
Medical Student Training in Aging Research (MSTAR) (2013)
Medical Student Summer Research Scholarship of the American Academy of Neurology (not accepted) (2013)
Learning Environment Commendation Award (2014)
Edward O. Reischauer Grant Recipient Awarded (2008)
Boards, Advisory Committees and Professional Organizations
American Brachytherapy Society (November 2018- present)
American College for Radiation Oncology (November 2018- present)
Society for Women in Radiation Oncology (September 2018- present)
American Society for Radiation Oncology (July 2017-present)
Radiological Society of North America (July 2017-present)
International Survey on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicines for Common Toxicities of Radiation Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol
Lee A, Kuczmarska-Haas A, Macomber MW, Woo K, Freese C, Morris ZS
2019 Jan-Mar; 4 (1): 134-141
Purpose: Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) are widely used by patients with cancer. However, little is known about the extent to which these potential remedies are used internationally to treat the most common toxicities of radiation therapy. We report on the results of an international survey that assessed the use of CAMs.
Methods and Materials: Surveys were distributed to 1174 practicing radiation oncologists. Questions evaluated the perceptions of CAMs and specific practice patterns for the use of CAM remedies in the treatment of common radiation-induced toxicities (eg, skin, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and mucositis/xerostomia). The responses were compared between the groups using the χ2 test and stratified on the basis of provider location, number of years in practice, and perception of CAMs.
Results: A total of 114 radiation oncologists from 29 different countries completed the survey, with a balanced distribution between North American (n = 56) and non-North American (n = 58) providers. Among the responding clinicians, 63% recommended CAMs in their practice. The proportion of clinicians who recommend CAMs for radiation toxicities did not significantly vary when stratified by provider's number of years in practice (P = .23) or location (United States/Canada vs other; P = .74). Overall, providers reported that 29.4% of their patients use CAMs, and 87.7% reported that their practice encouraged or was neutral on CAM use, whereas 12.3% recommended stopping CAMs. The most common sources of patient information on CAMs were the Internet (75.4%), friends (60.5%), and family (58.8%). Clinicians reported the highest use of CAMs for radiation skin toxicity at 66.7%, followed by 48.2% for fatigue, 40.4% for nausea, and 36.8% for mucositis/xerostomia.
Conclusions: Nearly two-thirds of the surveyed radiation oncologists recommend CAMs for radiation-related toxicities; however, they estimated that less than one third of patients use CAMs for this purpose. This suggests a need for further investigation and perhaps greater patient education on the roles of CAMs in treating radiation toxicities.View details for PubMedID 30706021
Detection of Delirium in Hospitalized Older General Medicine Patients: A Comparison of the 3D-CAM and CAM-ICU. J Gen Intern Med
Kuczmarska A, Ngo LH, Guess J, O'Connor MA, Branford-White L, Palihnich K, Gallagher J, Marcantonio ER
2016 Mar; 31 (3): 297-303
BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in older hospitalized patients and is associated with poor outcomes, yet most cases go undetected. The best approach for systematic delirium identification outside the intensive care unit remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparative effectiveness study of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and the newly developed 3-minute diagnostic assessment for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) in general medicine inpatients.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparative effectiveness study.
SETTING: Two non-intensive care general medicine units at a single academic medical center.
PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized general medicine patients aged ≥75 years.
MEASUREMENTS: Clinicians performed a reference standard assessment for delirium that included patient interviews, family interviews, and review of the medical record. An expert panel determined the presence or absence of delirium using DSM-IV criteria. Two blinded research assistants administered the CAM-ICU and the 3D-CAM in random order, and we determined their diagnostic test characteristics compared to the reference standard.
RESULTS: Among the 101 participants (mean age 84 ± 5.5 years, 61 % women, 25 % with dementia), 19 % were classified as delirious based on the reference standard. Evaluation times for the 3D-CAM and CAM-ICU were similar. The sensitivity [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of delirium detection for the 3D-CAM was 95 % [74 %, 100 %] and for the CAM-ICU was 53 % [29 %, 76 %], while specificity was >90 % for both instruments. Subgroup analyses showed that the CAM-ICU had sensitivity of 30 % in patients with mild delirium vs. 100 % for the 3D-CAM.
CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative effectiveness study, we found that the 3D-CAM had substantially higher sensitivity than the CAM-ICU in hospitalized older general medicine patients, and similar administration time. Therefore, the 3D-CAM may be a superior screening tool for delirium in this patient population.View details for PubMedID 26443577