Intersociety Radiation Oncology Summit—SCOPE II (original) (raw)
Related papers
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2016
Leaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology. The workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both s...
Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
Background: To understand the mutual professional relationship among the Radiation Oncologists (ROs) and the Medical Physicists (MPs), to identify the lacunae in the radiation planning workflow. Methods: The copies of the questionnaire were sent 1,404 MPs and 1,836 ROs through a web based survey application. Similar situations were queried from both MPs and ROs to obtain their respective opinions and the responses were compared. Results: The final analysis was done for 176 MPs and 180 ROs. When it comes to grading their peers, the ROs were happier with their counterparts and gave them relatively higher grade in their jobs. The ROs made more technical mistakes than their peers when giving final contours for planning and made changes to contours during plan evaluation as well. More than 50% of the times, MPs believed the doctors give tighter constraints than possible to achieve. About 44% of ROs and 22% of MPs complained that they are not made to understand the planning/clinical result part ever. About 10% MPs says their opinion was never sought for the choice of treatment modality. A minimum of 6% of ROs were never consulted during the planning procedure, 40% of physicians were consulted during the process of planning in 10-20% of cases. Only 25% and 30% of MPs believed they got adequate time for planning and QA respectively. Most people agreed that there was adequate number of ROs in the department. Most ROs and MPs thought that a combined planning and contouring station was necessary. The working relationship between the ROs and the MPs was good (not excellent). About 50% respondents were confident to get their kin treated (if required) in the department and another 30% people were confident about one specific counterpart. MPs were more inclined towards change of profession compared to ROs. Conclusions: This study is a preliminary attempt to identify the issues that need to be addressed in radiation oncology joint workflow. The observations of this study is limited by small sample size, qualitative nature of questions used, and the heterogeneity of radiation oncology practices worldwide that merits region-based surveys.
Global radiation oncology waybill
Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy, 2013
Radiomodulation Radiation oncology future Radiation oncology Strategy Waybill a b s t r a c t Background/aim: Radiation oncology covers many different fields of knowledge and skills. Indeed, this medical specialty links physics, biology, research, and formation as well as surgical and clinical procedures and even rehabilitation and aesthetics. The current socioeconomic situation and professional competences affect the development and future or this specialty. The aim of this article was to analyze and highlight the underlying pillars and foundations of radiation oncology, indicating the steps implicated in the future developments or competences of each. Methods: This study has collected data from the literature and includes highlights from discussions carried out during the XVII Congress of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) held in Vigo in June, 2013. Most of the aspects and domains of radiation oncology were analyzed, achieving recommendations for the many skills and knowledge related to physics, biology, research, and formation as well as surgical and clinical procedures and even supportive care and management.
High Tech – High Touch – the Two Sides of Radiation Oncology
Journal of Medical & Radiation Oncology, 2022
Professor Alessio Giuseppe Morganti teaches at the University "Alma Mater Studiorum" from Bologna. He is an expert in radiotherapy of prostate cancer and gastrointestinal malignancies (rectal, pancreatic and biliary tract cancers), and in palliative care. He was the principal investigator in more than 50 clinical studies and published more than 400 papers in Scopus-indexed journals. He kindly agreed to share his view about current aspects of Radiation Oncology. MC: Professor Morganti, what is your opinion on the technological advancement in radiotherapy? AGM: We have good news, indeed, most of them due to the technological advances, which allow us to use a higher dose to treat the tumor while keeping the risk of treatment-related toxicity at the same level. there are several examples of this (1). However, sometimes I think our enthusiasm for new technologies and tools-artificial intelligenceradiomics-is exaggerated. I was asked once which the best technology in Radiotherapy is. So, I showed a picture of a Cobalt machine, used by a colleague from an African country. He also uses a classical simulator, based on fluoroscopy. This African colleague told me that it happens many times that a urologist calls him at the end of the working day for a prostate cancer patient who has a painful bony metastasis that needs palliative Radiotherapy. So, he frequently arrives home 20 minutes late because of this emergency that he has to solve. Twenty minutes-which includes seeing the patient, simulation, planning and treatment delivery. In my environment, I am absolutely unable to treat a patient in such a short time, having to proceed with all the phases from which we are now unable to ignore (CT-simulation, contouring, treatment planning, image-guidance, and so on). Therefore, I should conclude that, at least in that setting, 2D radiotherapy is the most practical and efficient way to quickly treat a symptomatic patient. I see in my
International Conference on Advances in Radiation Oncology (ICARO): outcomes of an IAEA meeting
Radiation oncology (London, England), 2011
The IAEA held the International Conference on Advances in Radiation Oncology (ICARO) in Vienna on 27-29 April 2009. The Conference dealt with the issues and requirements posed by the transition from conventional radiotherapy to advanced modern technologies, including staffing, training, treatment planning and delivery, quality assurance (QA) and the optimal use of available resources. The current role of advanced technologies (defined as 3-dimensional and/or image guided treatment with photons or particles) in current clinical practice and future scenarios were discussed.ICARO was organized by the IAEA at the request of the Member States and co-sponsored and supported by other international organizations to assess advances in technologies in radiation oncology in the face of economic challenges that most countries confront. Participants submitted research contributions, which were reviewed by a scientific committee and presented via 46 lectures and 103 posters. There were 327 partic...
Radiation oncology. Programs for the present and future
Cancer, 1985
Radiation oncology in 1984 continues to make major advances in the multidisciplinary clinical programs. This has been possible by virtue of the radiation oncologist, who is an active participant in these clinical programs. The changing role for the radiation oncologist has dictated a greater participation in the primary management of the patient's disease process and also participation in multidisciplinary research programs.
2.11. The adoption of new technology in radiation oncology should rely on evidence-based medicine
Controversies in Medical Physics: a Compendium of Point/Counterpoint Debates Volume 2, 2012
New technologies are constantly being introduced in radiation oncology primarily because they are new and not because they are clearly better than the technologies they are replacing. Often there is a “belief” that the new technology “ought” to be better but many believe that they should be widely adopted in the clinic only after evidence has shown that they are at least as safe and efficacious as existing technologies, which are often less expensive. This is the concern debated in this month's Point/Counterpoint.