BACKGROUND:Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a technique used to deliver high, ablative doses of radiation in a limited number of fractions to ≥ 1 extracranial target(s). To the authors' knowledge, the prevalence of SBRT use among radiation oncologists in the United States is unknown. METHODS: A random sample of 1600 American radiation oncologists was surveyed via e-mail and facsimile (fax) regarding SBRT usage, including year of adoption, motivations, disease sites treated, and common prescriptions used. RESULTS: Of 1373 contactable physicians, 551 responses (40.1%) were received. The percentage of physicians using SBRT was 63.9% (95% confidence interval, 60%-68%), of whom nearly half adopted it in 2008 or later. The most commonly cited reasons for adopting SBRT were to allow the delivery of higher than conventional radiation doses (90.3%) and to allow retreatment (73.9%) in select patients. Academic physicians were more likely to report research as a motivation for SBRT adoption, whereas physicians in private practice were more likely to list competitive reasons. Among SBRT users, the most common disease sites treated were lung (89.3%), spine (67.5%), and liver (54.5%) tumors. Overall, 76.0% of current SBRT users planned to increase their use, whereas 66.5% of nonusers planned to adopt the technology in the future. CONCLUSIONS:SBRT has rapidly become a widely adopted treatment approach among American radiation oncologists. Further research and prospective trials are necessary to assess the benefits and risks of this novel technology.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a technique used to deliver high, ablative doses of radiation in a limited number of fractions to ≥ 1 extracranial target(s). To the authors' knowledge, the prevalence of SBRT use among radiation oncologists in the United States is unknown. METHODS: A random sample of 1600 American radiation oncologists was surveyed via e-mail and facsimile (fax) regarding SBRT usage, including year of adoption, motivations, disease sites treated, and common prescriptions used. RESULTS: Of 1373 contactable physicians, 551 responses (40.1%) were received. The percentage of physicians using SBRT was 63.9% (95% confidence interval, 60%-68%), of whom nearly half adopted it in 2008 or later. The most commonly cited reasons for adopting SBRT were to allow the delivery of higher than conventional radiation doses (90.3%) and to allow retreatment (73.9%) in select patients. Academic physicians were more likely to report research as a motivation for SBRT adoption, whereas physicians in private practice were more likely to list competitive reasons. Among SBRT users, the most common disease sites treated were lung (89.3%), spine (67.5%), and liver (54.5%) tumors. Overall, 76.0% of current SBRT users planned to increase their use, whereas 66.5% of nonusers planned to adopt the technology in the future. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT has rapidly become a widely adopted treatment approach among American radiation oncologists. Further research and prospective trials are necessary to assess the benefits and risks of this novel technology.
Authors: M Uematsu; A Shioda; A Suda; T Fukui; Y Ozeki; Y Hama; J R Wong; S Kusano Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K K Herfarth; J Debus; F Lohr; M L Bahner; B Rhein; P Fritz; A Höss; W Schlegel; M F Wannenmacher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Y Negoro; Y Nagata; T Aoki; T Mizowaki; N Araki; K Takayama; M Kokubo; S Yano; S Koga; K Sasai; Y Shibamoto; M Hiraoka Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Albert C Koong; Quynh T Le; Anthony Ho; Bryan Fong; George Fisher; Cheryl Cho; Jim Ford; Joseph Poen; Iris C Gibbs; Vivek K Mehta; Stephen Kee; Ward Trueblood; George Yang; J Augusto Bastidas Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel T Chang; Devin Schellenberg; John Shen; Jeff Kim; Karyn A Goodman; George A Fisher; James M Ford; Terry Desser; Andrew Quon; Albert C Koong Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christopher R King; James D Brooks; Harcharan Gill; Todd Pawlicki; Cristian Cotrutz; Joseph C Presti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kyle E Rusthoven; Brian D Kavanagh; Higinia Cardenes; Volker W Stieber; Stuart H Burri; Steven J Feigenberg; Mark A Chidel; Thomas J Pugh; Wilbur Franklin; Madeleine Kane; Laurie E Gaspar; Tracey E Schefter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sun Hyun Bae; Mi-Sook Kim; Won Il Jang; Chul-Seung Kay; Woochul Kim; Eun Seog Kim; Jin Ho Kim; Jin Hee Kim; Kwang Mo Yang; Kyu Chan Lee; A Ram Chang; Sunmi Jo Journal: Jpn J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: David A Palma; Joseph K Salama; Simon S Lo; Suresh Senan; Tom Treasure; Ramaswamy Govindan; Ralph Weichselbaum Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 66.675