MENU

Click here to

×

Are you sure ?

Yes, do it No, cancel
  1. Home
  2. Meeting Program
  3. All
  4. Survey On Practice and Technology Use in SRT and SBRT Delivery

Survey On Practice and Technology Use in SRT and SBRT Delivery

M Chetvertkov1*, J Monroe2, K Boparai3, T Solberg4, D Pafundi5, R Ruo6, D Gladstone7, F Yin8, I Chetty9, S Benedict10, D Followill11, Y Xiao12, J Sohn1, (1) Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, (2) Mercy Hosptial South, St. Louis, MO, (3) NRG Oncology Operations Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (4) UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, (5) Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, (6) McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, CA, (7) Dartmouth-Hitchcock Med. Ctr., Lebanon, NH, (8) Duke University Medical Center, Chapel Hill, NC, (9) Henry Ford Health System, Canton, MI, (10) UC Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, (11) The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (12) University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Presentations

(Sunday, 7/12/2020)   [Eastern Time (GMT-4)]

Room: AAPM ePoster Library

Purpose: Multiple published SRT and SBRT reports and guidelines are available in radiation therapy community, and consist of recommendations to perform patient setup, motion management, target localization and treatment delivery techniques. Currently published reports clearly say that their recommendations are not intended to be used as policies and requirements, but believed to be the best practices. NRG physics subcommittee launched a survey to learn how radiation oncology community implemented SRT/SBRT program referenced to task group reports, and protocol guideline.

Methods: The survey was distributed among radiation therapy institutions. A total of 568 institutions responded to the survey. The survey consisted of 23 questions, which covered general technologies, policies and procedures used in the specific institution for the SRT/SBRT delivery (9 questions), as well as site-specific questions for the brain SRT, for the lung and for the prostate SBRT (14 questions for each anatomical site ). Acquired data was analyzed to see how imaging technologies are used and available in our community.

Results: The findings of this survey show that current practices for performing SRT/SBRT treatments in different institutions vary, and not always correlate with published reports recommendations. In its current stage SBRT is still very immature and requires more data on clinical outcomes, tumor control, normal tissue complications, procedures and policies from participating institutions in order to take a step forward and build common requirements for the SBRT program.

Conclusion: While reports and guidelines are not mandatory, learning ground truth and what is used and implemented in reality is important. The results of this survey can help to further improve current SBRT practices, and can also be used as a starting point for other institutions that plan to start an SRT/SBRT program, and also can be used to develop future multi-institutional clinical protocols for SRT and SBRT.

Keywords

Not Applicable / None Entered.

Taxonomy

Not Applicable / None Entered.

Contact Email

Additional Links