Is "SABR" catching on?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

In keeping with the "cutting" theme (cyberknife, gammaknife, etc), some have advocated for switching the name of SBRT to SABR (stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, phonetically "sabre").

Is anyone calling it this? Has anyone presented it this way to a patient and, if so, what was their reaction?

BTW, congrats to those that passed orals this week!

Originally Posted by thesauce

In keeping with the "cutting" theme (cyberknife, gammaknife, etc), some have advocated for switching the name of SBRT to SABR (stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, phonetically "sabre").

Is anyone calling it this? Has anyone presented it this way to a patient and, if so, what was their reaction?

BTW, congrats to those that passed orals this week!

Based on my very subjective experience, I'd say i've heard SBRT 95% of the time (and see it in manuscripts) vs the occasional SABR reference.

I agree. SABR sounds cool and all, but SBRT has been an established norm for a while. During my lung oral boards session "SBRT" came up and the examiner didn't bat an eyelid.

Ablation is a precise medical term, which when used in the context of radiation is completely incorrect. Don't try to sound cool and just end up looking like an idiot.

Definition of ABLATION
: the process of ablating: as a : surgical removal b : loss of a part (as ice from a glacier or the outside of a nose cone) by melting or vaporization

Originally Posted by Ursus Martimus

Ablation is a precise medical term, which when used in the context of radiation is completely incorrect. Don't try to sound cool and just end up looking like an idiot.

Definition of ABLATION
: the process of ablating: as a : surgical removal b : loss of a part (as ice from a glacier or the outside of a nose cone) by melting or vaporization

A cursory search finds many broader definitions out there. When have you ever heard a surgeon say they "ablated" a tumor?

Originally Posted by medgator

Based on my very subjective experience, I'd say i've heard SBRT 95% of the time (and see it in manuscripts) vs the occasional SABR reference.

Agreed. I actually prefer SBRT to SABR. I can't say SABR without cracking up since I always end up picturing the Star Wars kid.

Originally Posted by Ursus Martimus

Ablation is a precise medical term, which when used in the context of radiation is completely incorrect. Don't try to sound cool and just end up looking like an idiot.

Definition of ABLATION
: the process of ablating: as a : surgical removal b : loss of a part (as ice from a glacier or the outside of a nose cone) by melting or vaporization

I wonder if the radiologists would agree with your definition, seeing as how they throw "RFA" around all the time.

Radiobiologically, what happens during SRS/SBRT is nothing close to what happens to tissue during standard XRT and it's not clear that the concept of ablation is "completely incorrect" in that regard.

Originally Posted by Kaushik

Agreed. I actually prefer SBRT to SABR. I can't say SABR without cracking up since I always end up picturing the Star Wars kid.

Wow.

http://www.lalondemedphysics.com/201...t’s-in-a-name/

Originally Posted by hollahollaholla

Wow.

http://www.lalondemedphysics.com/2011/06/06/guest-blog-sabr-what’s-in-a-name/

Sweet baby Jesus, that just made my night!

I do remember the PRO article from a while back. Bob Timmerman, our only hope.

Wow, I've heard Bob Timmerman called a lot of things, but never an idiot trying to sound cool. The guy is actually pretty awesome. Ablation is fine. If you look at brain speciments that have been SRS'd, especially for brain mets or some of the benign conditions, there is literally a hole. SBRT ("spurt") sounds pretty awful, but SABR just seem too sci-fi-ish to catch on. But, that's how it is referred to on the NCCN guidelines, so maybe it will have no choice to catch on.

SABR is actually a lot more precise than SBRT.

SABR defines through "ablative", that this is a special kind of treatment with very high potential for local control and destruction of tumor cells. Thus the term defines not only the technique ("stereotactic") used, but also the intention of treatment and radiobiology behind it.
SBRT on the other hand simply states, that this is a stereotactic technique.

In fact you could actually call any treatment an SBRT, if the correct technique is used.
Even an 8 week prostate treatment delivered with daily IGRT and fiducials in an immobilization device could theoretically be called SBRT.

Originally Posted by Palex80

SABR is actually a lot more precise than SBRT.

SABR defines through "ablative", that this is a special kind of treatment with very high potential for local control and destruction of tumor cells. Thus the term defines not only the technique ("stereotactic") used, but also the intention of treatment and radiobiology behind it.
SBRT on the other hand simply states, that this is a stereotactic technique.

In fact you could actually call any treatment an SBRT, if the correct technique is used.
Even an 8 week prostate treatment delivered with daily IGRT and fiducials in an immobilization device could theoretically be called SBRT.

yes it's stereotactic 'body' as opposed to 'brain' treatment

i agree, SABR impresses on the different aims and radiobiology of one/few fraction vs. multifraction plans. and it's excellent marketing.

Originally Posted by medgator

I wonder if the radiologists would agree with your definition, seeing as how they throw "RFA" around all the time.

Radiobiologically, what happens during SRS/SBRT is nothing close to what happens to tissue during standard XRT and it's not clear that the concept of ablation is "completely incorrect" in that regard.

I believe with respect to RFA, ablation is the correct term as the tissue is actually "melted" or boiled. I think you will find few if any radiobiolgist who will agree, that by any acceptable definition, the tissue is ablated by radiation. As far as calling Timmerman an idiot, that is quite a stretch. However, using imprecise terms only leads to confusion for patients making it difficult to convey the information. Image, if you will, a patient looking up ablation. In my mind people who use ambigious jargon in the medical field, even to make something more marketable, do indeed sound like idiots.

Originally Posted by Ursus Martimus

I believe with respect to RFA, ablation is the correct term as the tissue is actually "melted" or boiled. I think you will find few if any radiobiolgist who will agree, that by any acceptable definition, the tissue is ablated by radiation. As far as calling Timmerman an idiot, that is quite a stretch. However, using imprecise terms only leads to confusion for patients making it difficult to convey the information. Image, if you will, a patient looking up ablation. In my mind people who use ambigious jargon in the medical field, even to make something more marketable, do indeed sound like idiots.

I totally agree, it took me about 10 minutes to explain to a patient that the "knife" in gamma and cyber knife doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by RadOncDoc21

I totally agree, it took me about 10 minutes to explain to a patient that the "knife" in gamma and cyber knife doesn't exist.

In fact, even my internal medicine senior resident was looking for the surgical scar after my patient's cyberknife treatment.