Oliver Micke1, M Heinrich Seegenschmiedt. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie-Radioonkologie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany. omicke@uni-muenster.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: To overcome the lack of written guidelines for radiation therapy (RT) of benign diseases, the German Working Group on Radiotherapy of Benign Diseases initiated a consensus process in 1999 to warrant continuous quality assurance and outcome research in this field. METHODS: An expert panel was convened to define key issues and develop written guidelines for RT of benign diseases. Pertinent information and data from published literature were reviewed, and data of most importance were identified. In addition, a patterns of care study was conducted to obtain a nationwide survey on the current status and treatment standards. RESULTS: From the data gathered, the expert panel prepared a first consensus statement that was open to propositions and comments from all participating institutions. After completion of the multicenter discussion, a final written consensus statement was compiled, discussed, and finally agreed on during a national conference of radiation therapists. For each individual nonmalignant disease, the accepted RT concepts were documented. Finally, specific evaluation tools and recommendations for follow-up examinations were defined. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, written consensus guidelines for RT of nonmalignant diseases have been developed by the interaction of all institutions involved. These guidelines may serve as a starting point for quality assessment, prospective clinical trials, and outcome research.
PURPOSE: To overcome the lack of written guidelines for radiation therapy (RT) of benign diseases, the German Working Group on Radiotherapy of Benign Diseases initiated a consensus process in 1999 to warrant continuous quality assurance and outcome research in this field. METHODS: An expert panel was convened to define key issues and develop written guidelines for RT of benign diseases. Pertinent information and data from published literature were reviewed, and data of most importance were identified. In addition, a patterns of care study was conducted to obtain a nationwide survey on the current status and treatment standards. RESULTS: From the data gathered, the expert panel prepared a first consensus statement that was open to propositions and comments from all participating institutions. After completion of the multicenter discussion, a final written consensus statement was compiled, discussed, and finally agreed on during a national conference of radiation therapists. For each individual nonmalignant disease, the accepted RT concepts were documented. Finally, specific evaluation tools and recommendations for follow-up examinations were defined. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, written consensus guidelines for RT of nonmalignant diseases have been developed by the interaction of all institutions involved. These guidelines may serve as a starting point for quality assessment, prospective clinical trials, and outcome research.
Authors: A Montero Luis; R Hernanz de Lucas; A Hervás Morón; E Fernández Lizarbe; S Sancho García; C Vallejo Ocaña; A Polo Rubio; A Ramos Aguerri Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: M Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Oliver Micke; Marcus Niewald; Ralph Mücke; Hans Theodor Eich; Jan Kriz; Reinhard Heyd Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Iñigo San-Miguel; Ruth Carmona; Luis Luque; Raquel Cabrera; Marta Lloret; Francisco Rutllan; Pedro Carlos Lara Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2016-05-07
Authors: Stephanie R McKeown; Paul Hatfield; Robin J D Prestwich; Richard E Shaffer; Roger E Taylor Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ralph Mücke; M Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Reinhard Heyd; Ulrich Schäfer; Franz-Josef Prott; Michael Glatzel; Oliver Micke Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-12-28 Impact factor: 3.621