BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the current level of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) use in the United States. METHODS: Three-hundred thirty-three randomly selected radiation oncologists were sent a 13-question survey regarding IMRT use. IMRT users were asked about the number of patients and sites treated, their reasons for adopting IMRT, and future plans for its use. Physicians who did not use IMRT were asked about their reasons for not using IMRT; whether they intended to adopt it in the future; and, if so, their reasons. RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-eight responses (50.5%) were received. Fifty-four respondents (32.1%) stated that they currently used IMRT. Most IMRT users (79.6%) had adopted IMRT since 2000. Academic physicians were more likely to use IMRT (P = 0.003) compared with private practitioners. The percent of physicians using IMRT in practices comprised of 1 physician, 2-4 physicians, or > 4 physicians were 15.4%, 28.4%, and 44.2%, respectively (P = 0.02). The most common sites treated were head and neck malignancies and genitourinary tumors. Of the 114 IMRT nonusers, 96.5% planned to use IMRT in the future, with 91.8% planning to use IMRT within 3 years. Among IMRT nonusers, the most common reason cited for not using IMRT was lack of necessary equipment. The most common reasons for adopting IMRT (users) or wanting to adopt IMRT (nonusers) were to improve delivery of conventional doses and to escalate dose. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of radiation oncologists in the United States use IMRT. However, this number appears to be growing rapidly. Efforts to ensure the safe and appropriate application of this new technology are warranted. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11489
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the current level of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) use in the United States. METHODS: Three-hundred thirty-three randomly selected radiation oncologists were sent a 13-question survey regarding IMRT use. IMRT users were asked about the number of patients and sites treated, their reasons for adopting IMRT, and future plans for its use. Physicians who did not use IMRT were asked about their reasons for not using IMRT; whether they intended to adopt it in the future; and, if so, their reasons. RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-eight responses (50.5%) were received. Fifty-four respondents (32.1%) stated that they currently used IMRT. Most IMRT users (79.6%) had adopted IMRT since 2000. Academic physicians were more likely to use IMRT (P = 0.003) compared with private practitioners. The percent of physicians using IMRT in practices comprised of 1 physician, 2-4 physicians, or > 4 physicians were 15.4%, 28.4%, and 44.2%, respectively (P = 0.02). The most common sites treated were head and neck malignancies and genitourinary tumors. Of the 114 IMRT nonusers, 96.5% planned to use IMRT in the future, with 91.8% planning to use IMRT within 3 years. Among IMRT nonusers, the most common reason cited for not using IMRT was lack of necessary equipment. The most common reasons for adopting IMRT (users) or wanting to adopt IMRT (nonusers) were to improve delivery of conventional doses and to escalate dose. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of radiation oncologists in the United States use IMRT. However, this number appears to be growing rapidly. Efforts to ensure the safe and appropriate application of this new technology are warranted. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11489
Authors: M del Carmen Maceira Rozas; Teresa Rey Liste; Angela L García Caeiro; Julio García Comesaña Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: M A Deeley; A Chen; R Datteri; J H Noble; A J Cmelak; E F Donnelly; A W Malcolm; L Moretti; J Jaboin; K Niermann; Eddy S Yang; David S Yu; F Yei; T Koyama; G X Ding; B M Dawant Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Michael R Folkert; Samuel Singer; Murray F Brennan; Deborah Kuk; Li-Xuan Qin; Wendy K Kobayashi; Aimee M Crago; Kaled M Alektiar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eman Z AlDuhaiby; Stephen Breen; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Michael Sharpe; Linda Mayhew; Scott Tyldesley; Derek R Wilke; David C Hodgson Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 3.481