Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKrauze, Andra
dc.contributor.authorAttia, Albert
dc.contributor.authorBraunstein, Steve
dc.contributor.authorChan, Michael
dc.contributor.authorCombs, Stephanie E
dc.contributor.authorFietkau, Rainer
dc.contributor.authorFiveash, John
dc.contributor.authorFlickinger, John
dc.contributor.authorGrosu, Anca-Ligia
dc.contributor.authorHoward, Steven
dc.contributor.authorNieder, Carsten
dc.contributor.authorNiyazi, Maximilian
dc.contributor.authorRowe, Lindsay
dc.contributor.authorSmart, Dee Dee
dc.contributor.authorTsien, Christina
dc.contributor.authorCamphausen, Kevin
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-15T10:19:48Z
dc.date.available2018-02-15T10:19:48Z
dc.date.issued2017-12-01
dc.description.abstractPurpose:<br>To investigate radiation oncologists’ opinions on important considerations to offering re-irradiation (re-RT) as a treatment option for recurrent glioma.<br>Materials and methods:<br>A survey was conducted with 13 radiation oncologists involved in the care of central nervous system tumor patients. The survey was comprised of 49 questions divided into 2 domains: a demographic section (10 questions) and a case section (5 re-RT cases with 5 to 6 questions representing one or several re-RT treatment dilemmas as may be encountered in the clinic). Respondents were asked to rate the relevance of various factors to offering re-RT, respond to the cases with a decision to offer re-RT vs. not, volume to be treated, margins to be employed, dose/fractionation suggested and any additional comments with respect to rationale in each scenario.<br>Results:<br>Sixty nine percent of responders have been practicing for greater than 10 years and 61% have re-RT 20 to 100 patients to date, with 54% seeing 2–5 re-RT cases per month and retreating 1–2 patients per month. Recurrent tumor volume, time since previous radiation therapy, previously administered dose to organs at risk and patient performance status were rated by the majority of responders (85%, 92%, 77%, and 69% respectively) as extremely relevant or very relevant to offering re-RT as an option.<br>Conclusion:<br>The experts’ practice of re-RT is still heterogeneous, reflecting the paucity of high-quality prospective data available for decision-making. Nevertheless, practicing radiation oncologists can support own decisions by referring to the cases found suitable for re-RT in this survey.en_US
dc.descriptionSource at <a href=http://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0928-3>http://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0928-3</a>en_US
dc.identifier.citationKrauze, A.V., Attia, A., Braunstein, S., Chan, M., Combs, S.E., Fietkau, R., ... Camphausen, K. Expert consensus on re-irradiation for current glioma. Radiation Oncology. 2017;12(194)en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1545336
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13014-017-0928-3
dc.identifier.issn1748-717X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/12182
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.relation.journalRadiation Oncology
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Klinisk medisinske fag: 750::Onkologi: 762en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Clinical medical disciplines: 750::Oncology: 762en_US
dc.titleExpert consensus on re-irradiation for current gliomaen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record