Hitoshi Shibuya1, Hirohiko Tsujii. 1. JASTRO Database Committee, Department of Radiology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. shibuya.mrad@tmd.ac.jp
Abstract
PURPOSE: To ascertain the basic structural characteristics of radiation oncology facilities in Japan, we conducted a national survey on their status in 2003. The aims of the survey included the following: present status of radiation treatment facilities, equipment, personnel, patient loads, and other factors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A mail survey verified each potential facility delivering megavoltage radiation therapy and collected data on treatment devices, other equipment, personnel, new patients, and so on. Responses were obtained from 100% of potential facilities. RESULTS: A total of 726 facilities delivered radiation therapy, with 859 megavoltage devices, 203 RALS (remote after-loading system) and other radioactive sources, with 941 FTE (full-time employee) radiation oncologists including 369 FTE Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology-certified radiation oncologists, 1555 FTE radiation therapists, and 70 FTE physicists in 2003. Megavoltage devices included two heavy ion units and four proton units. In total, there were 149,793 new patients and 146,351 (98%) by external irradiation; 4379 (3%) were treated by brachytherapy with or without external irradiation. Eighty-six percent of the facilities had treatment-planning computers, but 4% had no treatment-planning capability. Six percent (44 facilities) of all facilities used hyperthermia, 12% (85 facilities) intraoperative radiation therapy, and 2% (12 facilities) intensity-modulated radiation therapy. CONCLUSION: Facilities surveys continue to provide a source of census data on radiation oncology in Japan, allowing comparisons among facility groups and over time.
PURPOSE: To ascertain the basic structural characteristics of radiation oncology facilities in Japan, we conducted a national survey on their status in 2003. The aims of the survey included the following: present status of radiation treatment facilities, equipment, personnel, patient loads, and other factors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A mail survey verified each potential facility delivering megavoltage radiation therapy and collected data on treatment devices, other equipment, personnel, new patients, and so on. Responses were obtained from 100% of potential facilities. RESULTS: A total of 726 facilities delivered radiation therapy, with 859 megavoltage devices, 203 RALS (remote after-loading system) and other radioactive sources, with 941 FTE (full-time employee) radiation oncologists including 369 FTE Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology-certified radiation oncologists, 1555 FTE radiation therapists, and 70 FTE physicists in 2003. Megavoltage devices included two heavy ion units and four proton units. In total, there were 149,793 new patients and 146,351 (98%) by external irradiation; 4379 (3%) were treated by brachytherapy with or without external irradiation. Eighty-six percent of the facilities had treatment-planning computers, but 4% had no treatment-planning capability. Six percent (44 facilities) of all facilities used hyperthermia, 12% (85 facilities) intraoperative radiation therapy, and 2% (12 facilities) intensity-modulated radiation therapy. CONCLUSION: Facilities surveys continue to provide a source of census data on radiation oncology in Japan, allowing comparisons among facility groups and over time.