Practical Radiation Oncology最新文献

{"title":"Financial Improvements From Short Course Adjuvant Vaginal Cuff Brachytherapy in Early Endometrial Cancer Compared With Standard of Care, “SAVE” Trial","authors":"Cristina DeCesaris MD ,&nbsp;Trevor Wilson MD ,&nbsp;Jaewhan Kim MD ,&nbsp;Lindsay Burt MD ,&nbsp;Jonathan Grant MD ,&nbsp;Matthew M. Harkenrider MD ,&nbsp;Jessica Huang PhD ,&nbsp;Anuja Jhingran MD, FASTRO, FACR ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Kidd MD ,&nbsp;Andre Konski MD, MBA, MA, FACR, FASTRO ,&nbsp;Lilie Lin MD ,&nbsp;William Small Jr. MD, FACRO, FACR, FASTRO ,&nbsp;Gita Suneja MD, MS ,&nbsp;David Gaffney MD, PhD, FACR, FABS, FASTRO","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.07.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.07.006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Early-stage endometrial cancer is often treated with hysterectomy followed by adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB). Financial toxicity from cancer treatment can impact treatment completion. The Short Course Adjuvant Vaginal Cuff Brachytherapy in Early Endometrial Cancer Compared to Standard of Care trial is a multicenter, prospective randomized trial of standard of care (SoC) VCB doses delivered in 3 to 5 fractions per the physician's discretion compared with a 2-fraction course. We report on secondary cost endpoints, quantifying the financial impacts of shorter treatment courses on institutions and participating patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>Technical (TechCs), professional, and total charges (TotCs) were collected prospectively and are reported as raw and Medicare-adjusted charges per patient. Distance to the treatment center and the median income for each patient's zip code were estimated. The Mann-Whitney U statistic, <em>t</em> test, and X² test were used to compare characteristics between the 2 groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One hundred eight patients were analyzed. SoC VCB was delivered in 3, 4, and 5 fractions for 27 of 54 patients (50%), 11 of 54 (20%), and 16 of 54 (30%), respectively. The median total distance traveled per patient for SoC versus experimental arms was 213 versus 137 miles (<em>p</em> = .12), and the median cost of commute for patients was $36.3 versus $18.0 (<em>p</em> = .11). Compared with 2-fraction treatment, 5-fraction treatment resulted in longer travel distances (median, 462 vs 137 miles; <em>p</em> &lt; .01) and increased travel costs (median, $59.3 vs $18.0; <em>p</em> ≤ .01). Unadjusted raw professional charges in USD per patient did not differ between SoC versus experimental arms ($9159 vs $7532; <em>p</em> = .19). TechCs were significantly higher in the SoC arm ($35,734 vs $24,696; <em>p</em> ≤ .01), as were TotCs ($44,892 vs $32,228; <em>p</em> &lt; .01;). Medicare-adjusted TechCs and TotCs were higher for the SoC arm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Two-fraction VCB resulted in fewer treatments per patient, reduced cost of travel compared with longer courses, and an adjusted reduction in health care expenditures compared with SoC.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e500-e506"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142300800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fibrosis or Recurrence After Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Proposed Decision Tree","authors":"Arya Amini MD ,&nbsp;Henry S. Park MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.07.004","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.07.004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e467-e469"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142551939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival in Postprostatectomy Patients Receiving 18F-Fluciclovine-Guided Prostate Bed-Only Radiation: Post Hoc Analysis of a Prospective Randomized Trial","authors":"Vishal R. Dhere MD ,&nbsp;David M. Schuster MD ,&nbsp;Subir Goyal PhD ,&nbsp;Eduard Schreibmann PhD ,&nbsp;Bruce W. Hershatter MD ,&nbsp;Sagar A. Patel MD, MSCR ,&nbsp;Joseph W. Shelton MD ,&nbsp;Sheela Hanasoge MBBS, PhD ,&nbsp;Pretesh R. Patel MD ,&nbsp;Nikhil T. Sebastian MD ,&nbsp;Omotayo A. Adediran MBBS ,&nbsp;Ismaheel O. Lawal MBBS, PhD ,&nbsp;Ashesh B. Jani MD, MSEE","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.011","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.011","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Whole-pelvis (WP) radiation therapy (radiation) improved biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) compared with prostate bed (PB)-only radiation in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0534, but was performed in an era prior to positron emission tomography (PET) staging. Separately, 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT-guided postprostatectomy radiation improved 3-year bRFS versus radiation guided by conventional imaging alone. We hypothesized that patients who were changed from WP to PB-only radiation after PET would have bRFS that was: (a) no higher than patients initially planned for PB-only radiation; and (b) lower than patients planned for WP radiation without PET guidance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>We conducted a post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized trial comparing conventional (arm 1) versus PET-guided (arm 2) postprostatectomy radiation. In arm 2, pre-PET treatment field decisions were recorded and post-PET fields were defined per protocol; pathologic node negative (pN0) without pelvic or extrapelvic PET uptake received PB-only radiation. Three-year bRFS was compared in patients planned for WP with change to PB-only radiation (arm 2 [WP:PB]) vs arm 2 patients planned for PB-only with final radiation to PB-only (arm 2 [PB:PB]) and arm 1 pN0 patients treated with WP radiation (arm 1 [WP]) using the Z test and log-rank test. Demographics were compared using the chi-square test, Fisher exact test, or analysis of variance, as appropriate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified 10 arm 2 (WP:PB), 31 arm 2 (PB:PB) and 11 arm 1 (WP) patients. Androgen deprivation was used in 50.0% of arm 2 (WP:PB) and 3.2% of arm 2 (PB:PB) patients, <em>P</em> &lt; .01. Median preradiation prostate-specific antigen was higher in arm 2 (WP:PB) vs arm 2 (PB:PB) patients (0.4 vs 0.2 ng/mL, <em>P</em> = .03); however, there were no significant differences in T stage, Gleason score, or margin positivity. Three-year bRFS was 80% in arm 2 (WP:PB) vs 87.4% in arm 2 (PB:PB), <em>P</em> = .47, respectively. Arm 1(WP) patients had significantly worse 3-year (23%) bRFS vs arm 2 (WP:PB), <em>P</em> &lt; .01.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Patients initially planned for WP radiation with field decision change to PB-only radiation after PET showed (1) no significant difference in 3-year bRFS compared with patients initially planned for PB-only radiation; and (2) improved bRFS compared with patients receiving WP radiation without PET guidance. PET-guided volume de-escalation in selected patients may be 1 approach to mitigating toxicity without compromising outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e492-e499"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141735653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Benchmarking a Foundation Large Language Model on its Ability to Relabel Structure Names in Accordance With the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-263 Report","authors":"Jason Holmes PhD ,&nbsp;Lian Zhang PhD ,&nbsp;Yuzhen Ding PhD ,&nbsp;Hongying Feng PhD ,&nbsp;Zhengliang Liu MS ,&nbsp;Tianming Liu PhD ,&nbsp;William W. Wong MD ,&nbsp;Sujay A. Vora MD ,&nbsp;Jonathan B. Ashman MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Wei Liu PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.017","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.017","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To introduce the concept of using large language models (LLMs) to relabel structure names in accordance with the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-263 standard and to establish a benchmark for future studies to reference.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-4 was implemented within a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine server. Upon receiving a structure-set Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine file, the server prompts GPT-4 to relabel the structure names according to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-263 report. The results were evaluated for 3 disease sites: prostate, head and neck, and thorax. For each disease site, 150 patients were randomly selected for manually tuning the instructions prompt (in batches of 50), and 50 patients were randomly selected for evaluation. Structure names considered were those that were most likely to be relevant for studies using structure contours for many patients.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The per-patient accuracy was 97.2%, 98.3%, and 97.1% for prostate, head and neck, and thorax disease sites, respectively. On a per-structure basis, the clinical target volume was relabeled correctly in 100%, 95.3%, and 92.9% of cases, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Given the accuracy of GPT-4 in relabeling structure names as presented in this work, LLMs are poised to become an important method for standardizing structure names in radiation oncology, especially considering the rapid advancements in LLM capabilities that are likely to continue.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e515-e521"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142146870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evolution of Proton Radiation Therapy Brainstem Constraints on the Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry","authors":"Dora Correia MD ,&nbsp;Daniel J. Indelicato MD ,&nbsp;Arnold C. Paulino MD ,&nbsp;Ralph Ermoian MD ,&nbsp;Stephen Mihalcik MD ,&nbsp;Stephanie M. Perkins MD ,&nbsp;Christine Hill-Kayser MD ,&nbsp;Victor S. Mangona MD ,&nbsp;Jae Lee MD ,&nbsp;John Han-Chih Chang MD ,&nbsp;Nadia N. Laack MD, MS ,&nbsp;Young Kwok MD ,&nbsp;John Perentesis MD ,&nbsp;Ralph Vatner MD ,&nbsp;Ronak Dave MD ,&nbsp;Sara L. Gallotto MS ,&nbsp;Miranda P. Lawell MS ,&nbsp;Benjamin V.M. Bajaj MA ,&nbsp;Keith W. Allison MS ,&nbsp;Alisa Perry BSN ,&nbsp;Torunn I. Yock MD, MCH","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.013","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.013","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Increasing concern that brainstem toxicity incidence after proton radiation therapy might be higher than with photons led to a 2014 University of Florida (UF) landmark paper identifying its risk factors and proposing more conservative dose constraints. We evaluated how practice patterns changed among the Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR).</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>This prospective multicenter cohort study gathered data from patients under the age of 22 years enrolled on the PPCR, treated between 2002 and 2019 for primary posterior fossa brain tumors. After standardizing brainstem contours, we garnered dosimetry data and correlated those meeting the 2014 proton-specific brainstem constraint guidelines by treatment era, histology, and extent of surgical resection.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 467 patients with evaluable proton radiation therapy plans were reviewed. Median age was 7.1 years (range: &lt;1-21.9), 63.0% (n = 296) were men, 76.0% (n = 357) were White, and predominant histology was medulloblastoma (55.0%, n = 256), followed by ependymoma (27.0%, n = 125). Extent of resection was mainly gross total resection (GTR) (67.0%, n = 312), followed by subtotal resection (STR) or biopsy (20.0%, n = 92), and near total resection (NTR) (9.2%, n = 43). The UF brainstem constraint metrics most often exceeded were the goal D_50% of 52.4 gray relative biological equivalents (43.3%, n = 202) and maximal D_50% of 54 gray relative biological equivalents (12.6%, n = 59). The compliance rate increased after the new guidelines (2002-2014: 64.0% vs 2015-2019: 74.6%, <em>P</em> = .02), except for ependymoma (46.3% pre- vs 50.0% post-guidelines, <em>P</em> = .86), presenting lower compliance (48.8%) in comparison to medulloblastoma/ primitive neuroectodermal tumors/pineoblastoma (77.7%), glioma (89.1%), and atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (90.9%) (<em>P</em> &lt; .001). Degree of surgical resection did not affect compliance rates (GTR/NTR 71.0% vs STR/biopsy 72.8%, <em>P</em> = .45), even within the ependymoma subset (GTR/NTR 50.5% vs STR/biopsy 38.1%, <em>P</em> = .82).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Since the publication of the UF guidelines, the pediatric proton community has implemented more conservative brainstem constraints in all patients except those with ependymoma, irrespective of residual disease after surgery. Future work will evaluate if this change in practice is associated with decreased rates of brainstem toxicity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e507-e514"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141918035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Experience From an Early Exposure Education Program in Radiation Oncology for High School and Undergraduate Students","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.023","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.023","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Exposure to radiation oncology<span> (RO), which is a small and highly subspecialized field of oncology, during undergraduate or medical education<span> is often limited. Coupled with reduced elective exposures during the COVID-19 pandemic, unsubstantiated concerns regarding the RO job market have led to a noticeable decline in residency applications and medical students<span> who express an interest in the field. Here, we describe a summer education program piloted in our RO department at a comprehensive cancer center to provide premedical school students (ranging from high school to postbaccalaureate) early exposure to the specialty through clinical shadowing, research opportunities, journal club, and formal didactic lectures. Pre- and postprogram surveys were administered to these students to evaluate the change in knowledge in RO. A total of 8 students participated in the program. We found an increase in understanding of the specialty, high levels of interest in considering RO as a career, and positive feedback regarding the program overall. This study supports the role of early exposure and education in stimulating interest in future medical students to pursue RO as a career. Future efforts are needed to further develop and evaluate these education programs as well as disseminate the program more broadly.</span></span></span></div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e438-e442"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141176474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Weekly Versus Bolus Cisplatin Concurrent With Definitive Radiation Therapy for Squamous Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.03.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.03.007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div><span>The schedule of cisplatin concurrent with definitive radiation for </span>squamous carcinoma<span> of the head and neck remains controversial. Most institutions deliver either a high-dose “bolus” schedule once every 3 weeks or a low-dose weekly schedule. We compared these 2 schedules via a simplified network meta-analysis with a common comparator.</span></div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div><span>We performed a PRISMA–concordant systematic review to identify </span>randomized controlled trials<span><span> comparing cisplatin with </span>cetuximab<span><span> for nonmetastatic, locoregionally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck treated with definitive radiation. Trials incorporating primary surgery or induction therapy were excluded. Patient survival times were extracted on a per-event basis from the published curves using a digitizer and validated against published point estimates and hazard ratios (HRs). Survival was compared using random effects </span>Cox regression under a frequentist framework. Toxicity and secondary endpoints were analyzed qualitatively. The Cochrane method assessed the risk of bias. The analysis plan was preregistered with the Open Science Foundation.</span></span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>Five randomized trials were identified, including 1678 patients. There was no statistical difference in overall survival between weekly and bolus regimens (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.53-1.52, </span><em>P</em> = .345). This Cox model suggested that for the average patient in the cohort, the absolute difference in 5-year overall survival between weekly and bolus regimens was +1.2% (95% CI, −6.1%-+5.9%, <em>P</em> = .345). Secondary endpoints and toxicity were not obviously different by regimen, qualitatively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The cetuximab trials provide indirect data suggesting that the differences between cisplatin schedules are subtle.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e458-e466"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141421806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Additive Value of Magnetic Resonance Simulation Before Chemoradiation in Evaluating Treatment Response and Pseudoprogression in High-Grade Gliomas","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.009","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.009","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>A dedicated magnetic resonance imaging simulation (MRsim) for radiation treatment (RT) planning in patients with high-grade glioma (HGG) can detect early radiologic changes, including tumor progression after surgery and before standard of care chemoradiation. This study aimed to determine the effect of using postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) versus MRsim as the baseline for response assessment and reporting pseudoprogression on follow-up imaging at 1 month (FU1) after chemoradiation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>Histologically confirmed patients with HGG were planned for 6 weeks of RT in a prospective study for adaptive RT planning. All patients underwent postoperative MRI, MRsim, and follow-up MRI scans every 2 to 3 months. Tumor response was assessed by 3 independent blinded reviewers using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria when baseline was either postoperative MRI or MRsim. Interobserver agreement was calculated using Light's kappa.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty patients (median age, 60.5 years; IQR, 54.5-66.3) were included. Median interval between surgery and RT was 34 days (IQR, 27-41). Response assessment at FU1 differed in 17 patients (57%) when the baseline was postoperative MRI versus MRsim, including true progression versus partial response or stable disease in 11 (37%) and stable disease versus partial response in 6 (20%) patients. True progression was reported in 19 patients (63.3%) on FU1 when the baseline was postoperative MRI versus 8 patients (26.7%) when the baseline was MRsim (<em>P</em> = .004). Pseudoprogression was observed at FU1 in 12 (40%) versus 4 (13%) patients, when the baseline was postoperative MRI versus MRsim (<em>P</em> = .019). Interobserver agreement between observers was moderate (κ = 0.579; <em>P</em> &lt; .001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our study demonstrates the value of acquiring an updated MR closer to RT in patients with HGG to improve response assessment, and accuracy in evaluation of pseudoprogression even at the early time point of first follow-up after RT. Earlier identification of patients with true progression would enable more timely salvage treatments including potential clinical trial enrollment to improve patient outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e449-e457"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140868705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In Regard to Shaitelman et al.","authors":"Orit Kaidar-Person MD,&nbsp;Vratislav Strnad PhD,&nbsp;Ivica Ratosa PhD,&nbsp;Liesbeth Boersma PhD,&nbsp;Philip Poortmans PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2023.12.015","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2023.12.015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 608-612"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142551866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In Reply to Kaidar-Person et al.","authors":"Simona F. Shaitelman MD, EdM,&nbsp;Alvin R. Cabrera MD,&nbsp;Kilian E. Salerno MD,&nbsp;Janice A. Lyons MD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.02.004","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.02.004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e532-e533"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142551867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}