PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilization of advanced imaging technologies for target delineation among radiation oncologists in the United States. METHODS: A random sample of 1,600 radiation oncologists was contacted by Internet, e-mail, and fax and questioned regarding the use of advanced imaging technologies, clinical applications, and future plans for use. Advanced imaging technologies were defined as any of the following that were directly incorporated into radiation therapy planning: MRI, PET, single-photon emission CT, 4-D CT, functional MRI, and MR spectroscopy. RESULTS: Of 1,089 contactable physicians, 394 (36%) responded. Of respondents, 65% were in private practice and 35% were in academic practice. The proportion using any advanced imaging technology for target delineation was 95%. However, the majority reported only rare (in <25% of their patients; 46.6%) or infrequent (in 25%-50% of their patients; 26.0%) utilization. The most commonly used technologies were 2-[(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose PET (76%), MRI (72%), and 4-D CT (44%). The most common cancers treated using image-guided target delineation were those of the lung (83%), central nervous system (79%), and head and neck (79%). Among users of advanced imaging technologies, 66% planned to increase use; 30% of nonusers planned to adopt these technologies in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced imaging technologies are widely used by US radiation oncologists for target delineation. Although the majority of respondents used them in <50% of their patients, the frequency of utilization is expected to increase. Studies determining the optimal application of these technologies in radiation therapy planning are needed.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilization of advanced imaging technologies for target delineation among radiation oncologists in the United States. METHODS: A random sample of 1,600 radiation oncologists was contacted by Internet, e-mail, and fax and questioned regarding the use of advanced imaging technologies, clinical applications, and future plans for use. Advanced imaging technologies were defined as any of the following that were directly incorporated into radiation therapy planning: MRI, PET, single-photon emission CT, 4-D CT, functional MRI, and MR spectroscopy. RESULTS: Of 1,089 contactable physicians, 394 (36%) responded. Of respondents, 65% were in private practice and 35% were in academic practice. The proportion using any advanced imaging technology for target delineation was 95%. However, the majority reported only rare (in <25% of their patients; 46.6%) or infrequent (in 25%-50% of their patients; 26.0%) utilization. The most commonly used technologies were 2-[(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose PET (76%), MRI (72%), and 4-D CT (44%). The most common cancers treated using image-guided target delineation were those of the lung (83%), central nervous system (79%), and head and neck (79%). Among users of advanced imaging technologies, 66% planned to increase use; 30% of nonusers planned to adopt these technologies in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced imaging technologies are widely used by US radiation oncologists for target delineation. Although the majority of respondents used them in <50% of their patients, the frequency of utilization is expected to increase. Studies determining the optimal application of these technologies in radiation therapy planning are needed.
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Cristian Lorenz; Eric Johnston; Peter G Maxim; Maximilian Diehn; Neville Eclov; Cristian Barquero; Billy W Loo; Paul J Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Carryn M Anderson; Wenqing Sun; John M Buatti; Joan E Maley; Bruno Policeni; Sarah L Mott; John E Bayouth Journal: Jacobs J Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-09
Authors: Christopher A Barker; Robert W Mutter; Lauren Q Shapiro; Zhigang Zhang; Suzanne L Wolden; Joachim Yahalom Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Jens von Berg; Cristian Lorenz; Melody P Chung; Julian C Hong; Billy W Loo; Paul J Keall Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-09-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Chin-Lee Wu; Kate W Jordan; Eva M Ratai; Jinhua Sheng; Christen B Adkins; Elita M Defeo; Bruce G Jenkins; Leslie Ying; W Scott McDougal; Leo L Cheng Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Paul J Keall; Doan Trang Nguyen; Ricky O'Brien; Pengpeng Zhang; Laura Happersett; Jenny Bertholet; Per R Poulsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Cristian Lorenz; Erik Mittra; Julian C Hong; Melody Chung; Neville Eclov; Jacqueline To; Maximilian Diehn; Billy W Loo; Paul J Keall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 7.038