S K Parikh1, D Nori, A Osian, P Tripuraneni. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, 56-45 Main St, Flushing, NY 11355, USA. skparikh@msn.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify logistic issues faced by radiation oncologists in initiating intracoronary radiation therapy (RT) and to delineate their role in these procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Radiation oncologists from 12 sites (with combined experience of >500 cases) that participated in a randomized, double-blinded study of intracoronary RT completed a questionnaire that included demographics and experience, regulatory issues, scheduling and interaction with patients, time commitment, involvement of the radiation oncologist, and ideas for overcoming hurdles. RESULTS: Licensing was perceived as a substantial hurdle; Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval took more than 5 months at five of 12 sites. At two higher-volume sites, 10-20 procedures were performed per week; 75% of these radiation oncologists did not see the patient prior to the procedure and were not involved in obtaining informed consent. The mean time spent per case was 30-90 minutes; however, there were major concerns about case scheduling (<50% had any input in case scheduling) and after-hours coverage. Radiation oncologists performed fluoroscopy and cineangiography at most centers (92% and 83%); they also performed intracoronary contrast material injections (67%), interpreted intravascular ultrasonographic images (42%), and repositioned the intracoronary RT catheter (33%). CONCLUSION: The authors identify several issues that need to be addressed before intracoronary RT becomes a part of widespread clinical practice. Close collaboration between cardiologists and radiation oncologists at various levels is required to ensure that patients derive maximal benefit from this new technology.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To identify logistic issues faced by radiation oncologists in initiating intracoronary radiation therapy (RT) and to delineate their role in these procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiation oncologists from 12 sites (with combined experience of >500 cases) that participated in a randomized, double-blinded study of intracoronary RT completed a questionnaire that included demographics and experience, regulatory issues, scheduling and interaction with patients, time commitment, involvement of the radiation oncologist, and ideas for overcoming hurdles. RESULTS: Licensing was perceived as a substantial hurdle; Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval took more than 5 months at five of 12 sites. At two higher-volume sites, 10-20 procedures were performed per week; 75% of these radiation oncologists did not see the patient prior to the procedure and were not involved in obtaining informed consent. The mean time spent per case was 30-90 minutes; however, there were major concerns about case scheduling (<50% had any input in case scheduling) and after-hours coverage. Radiation oncologists performed fluoroscopy and cineangiography at most centers (92% and 83%); they also performed intracoronary contrast material injections (67%), interpreted intravascular ultrasonographic images (42%), and repositioned the intracoronary RT catheter (33%). CONCLUSION: The authors identify several issues that need to be addressed before intracoronary RT becomes a part of widespread clinical practice. Close collaboration between cardiologists and radiation oncologists at various levels is required to ensure that patients derive maximal benefit from this new technology.