International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
-
About half of all cancer patients in the United States receive radiation therapy as a part of their cancer treatment. Little is known, however, about the facilities that currently deliver external beam radiation. Our goal was to construct a comprehensive database of all radiation therapy facilities in the United States that can be used for future health services research in radiation oncology. ⋯ Determining the location of the 2,246 radiation facilities in the United States is a first step in providing important information to radiation oncologists and policymakers concerned with access to radiation therapy services, the distribution of health care resources, and the quality of cancer care.
-
Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Nov 2006
Comment LetterIn regards to Roach et al. defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:965-974).
-
Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Nov 2006
Dosimetric comparison of four target alignment methods for prostate cancer radiotherapy.
The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric consequences of 4 treatment delivery techniques for prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). ⋯ Direct target alignment methods (US and CT) provided better target coverage. CT-guided alignment provided the best and most consistent dosimetric coverage. A larger planning target volume margin is needed for SV coverage when the alignment target is the prostate.
-
Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Nov 2006
Randomized Controlled TrialWhole-pelvis, "mini-pelvis," or prostate-only external beam radiotherapy after neoadjuvant and concurrent hormonal therapy in patients treated in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413 trial.
The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9413 trial demonstrated a better progression-free survival (PFS) with whole-pelvis (WP) radiotherapy (RT) compared with prostate-only (PO) RT. This secondary analysis was undertaken to determine whether "mini-pelvis" (MP; defined as > or = 10 x 11 cm but < 11 x 11 cm) RT resulted in progression-free survival (PFS) comparable to that of WP RT. To avoid a timing bias, this analysis was limited to patients receiving neoadjuvant and concurrent hormonal therapy (N&CHT) in Arms 1 and 2 of the study. ⋯ This subset analysis demonstrates that RT field size has a major impact on PFS, and the findings support comprehensive nodal treatment in patients with a risk of LN involvement of > 15%.