Literature DB >> 25993488

Does a too risk-averse approach to the implementation of new radiotherapy technologies delay their clinical use?

R Garcia1, H Nyström2, C Fiorino3, D Thwaites4.   

Abstract

Radiotherapy is a generally safe treatment modality in practice; nevertheless, recent well-reported accidents also confirm its potential risks. However, this may obstruct or delay the introduction of new technologies and treatment strategies/techniques into clinical practice. Risks must be addressed and judged in a realistic context: risks must be assessed realistically. Introducing new technology may introduce new possibilities of errors. However, delaying the introduction of such new technology therefore means that patients are denied the potentially better treatment opportunities. Despite the difficulty in quantitatively assessing the risks on both sides of the possible choice of actions, including the "lost opportunity", the best estimates should be included in the overall risk-benefit and cost-benefit analysis. Radiotherapy requires a sufficiently high level of support for the safety, precision and accuracy required: radiotherapy development and implementation is exciting. However, it has been anxious with a constant awareness of the consequences of mistakes or misunderstandings. Recent history can be used to show that for introduction of advanced radiotherapy, the risk-averse medical physicist can act as an electrical fuse in a complex circuit. The lack of sufficient medical physics resource or expertise can short out this fuse and leave systems unsafe. Future technological developments will continue to present further safety and risk challenges. The important evolution of radiotherapy brings different management opinions and strategies. Advanced radiotherapy technologies can and should be safely implemented in as timely a manner as possible for the patient groups where clinical benefit is indicated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25993488      PMCID: PMC4628537          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150124

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  14 in total

Review 1.  A review of the clinical evidence for intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  J Staffurth
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2010-07-31       Impact factor: 4.126

Review 2.  Hidden danger, obvious opportunity: error and risk in the management of cancer.

Authors:  A J Munro
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Radiotherapy capacity in European countries: an analysis of the Directory of Radiotherapy Centres (DIRAC) database.

Authors:  Eduardo Rosenblatt; Joanna Izewska; Yavuz Anacak; Yaroslav Pynda; Pierre Scalliet; Mathieu Boniol; Philippe Autier
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Progress with Intensity-modulated radiotherapy implementation in the UK.

Authors:  W P M Mayles; T Cooper; R Mackay; J Staffurth; M Williams
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 4.126

5.  A survey of image-guided radiation therapy use in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel R Simpson; Joshua D Lawson; Sameer K Nath; Brent S Rose; Arno J Mundt; Loren K Mell
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Assessment of potential advantages of relevant ions for particle therapy: a model based study.

Authors:  Rebecca Grün; Thomas Friedrich; Michael Krämer; Klemens Zink; Marco Durante; Rita Engenhart-Cabillic; Michael Scholz
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Survey of the availability and use of advanced radiotherapy technology in the UK.

Authors:  W P M Mayles
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 4.126

8.  Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Christopher M Nutting; James P Morden; Kevin J Harrington; Teresa Guerrero Urbano; Shreerang A Bhide; Catharine Clark; Elizabeth A Miles; Aisha B Miah; Kate Newbold; MaryAnne Tanay; Fawzi Adab; Sarah J Jefferies; Christopher Scrase; Beng K Yap; Roger P A'Hern; Mark A Sydenham; Marie Emson; Emma Hall
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 9.  [Epinal radiotherapy accident: passed, present, future].

Authors:  D Peiffert; J-M Simon; F Eschwege
Journal:  Cancer Radiother       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 1.018

10.  Tools for risk assessment in radiation therapy.

Authors:  P Ortiz López
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.