Ah yes. The old white guy flicking you off at some type of bead mardi gras or carnival party. Le bon temps for me but not for thee! I’ll have a sazerac to that. Perfect GIF for our field.![]()
F you got mine is prevalent amongst ASTRO leadership, Academic Chairs, and corrupt bankrupt large private practice leadership. Why, that venn diagram even overlaps a bit don't it.
SK has been lost off radar, repeat, lost off radar
Ah yes. The old white guy flicking you off at some type of bead mardi gras or carnival party. Le bon temps for me but not for thee! I’ll have a sazerac to that. Perfect GIF for our field.
Rad oncs are literally to be blamed directly.It’s very interesting to watch all the press about evil radiation
I’ve had numerous patients die from cancer treatment over the years. The majority from surgery and chemo. Granted second malignancies and increased risk of cardiac disease may be harder to appreciate but they also happen years down the road. Ive seen 1-2 carotid blowout and otherwise can’t recall radiation related death acutely . I’ve seen leukemia death from chemo induced cancer, 2-3 bone marrow failures from temodar leading to death or impending death. Personally seen 3-5 patients die from TPF. A couple from mmc.
For true equipoise, the same doc should be giving both systemic and XRT. If we gave both, we would be more discretionary regarding XRT than we are presently (the exception being getting single fraction treatments in to high risk metastatic sites earlier and more appropriately than with the present system).It’s very interesting to watch all the press about evil radiation
I’ve had numerous patients die from cancer treatment over the years. The majority from surgery and chemo. Granted second malignancies and increased risk of cardiac disease may be harder to appreciate but they also happen years down the road. Ive seen 1-2 carotid blowout and otherwise can’t recall radiation related death acutely . I’ve seen leukemia death from chemo induced cancer, 2-3 bone marrow failures from temodar leading to death or impending death. Personally seen 3-5 patients die from TPF. A couple from mmc.
He used to be one of the major thought leaders in breast, the kind of academic who could pontificate for ages on wether or not to give a breast boost with photons vs electrons and what the Talmud has to say on the matter. Probably been at Harvard for over 40 years Anyway, for all we know, he could be one of the posters on this site. Don’t think his views abt future of xrt are any different than mine.Dr. Recht is a teaching attending? Shame on him. Although Harvard folks would argue that their program should be the last one to close. Maybe
it used to be so good to be a breast guru... 50.4 / 28 fx WBRT + 12.6 Gy /7 boost. nothing could touch thisHe used to be one of the major thought leaders in breast, the kind of academic who could pontificate for ages on wether or not to give a breast boost with photons vs electrons and what the Talmud has to say on the matter. Probably been at Harvard for over 40 years Anyway, for all we know, he could be one of the posters on this site. Don’t think his views abt future of xrt are any different than mine.
45 +16! I think Recht or some else at Harvard showed this had better cosmesisit used to be so good to be a breast guru... 50.4 / 28 fx WBRT + 12.6 Gy /7 boost. nothing could touch this
Thats why I mentioned it.actually learned abt in one of those monthly acr commentaries by recht.There is actually a RCT confirming this never discussed because it does not fit the dominant narrative of hypofractionation for all
100%45 +16! I think Recht or some else at Harvard showed this had better cosmesis
Another 100%.There is actually a RCT confirming this never discussed because it does not fit the dominant narrative of hypofractionation for all
update on this?I've sent Dr. Recht an email.
He had a very thoughtful reply. He felt that the quote was not reflective of how he felt and was offhand. He was kind in discussing community docs.
I can't get into someone's head about how they really feel, but I've said things before that I felt were jokey or trying to make a point that I regretted.
He asked the reporter to take the quote out. I don't agree with the reporter doing this, but I 100% understand his rationale for doing so.
Even though the quote annoyed me, I give the grace of a mistake. That's all I can really do. He didn't defend it in any way. He didn't push back on my annoyance. I can't say anything bad about how the interaction went.
Seems like a decent guy and Harvard friends mostly gave an eyeroll and said "Oh, that's just Abram". I think my online persona shows I'm pretty gentle with those that engage this way.
EDIT: in his email he called them "offensive sentences". Not "sentences that offended some" or anything wishy washy.
He had a very thoughtful reply. He felt that the quote was not reflective of how he felt and was offhand. He was kind in discussing community docs.
I can't get into someone's head about how they really feel, but I've said things before that I felt were jokey or trying to make a point that I regretted.
He asked the reporter to take the quote out. I don't agree with the reporter doing this, but I 100% understand his rationale for doing so.
Even though the quote annoyed me, I give the grace of a mistake. That's all I can really do. He didn't defend it in any way. He didn't push back on my annoyance. I can't say anything bad about how the interaction went.
Seems like a decent guy and Harvard friends mostly gave an eyeroll and said "Oh, that's just Abram". I think my online persona shows I'm pretty gentle with those that engage this way.
EDIT: in his email he called them "offensive sentences". Not "sentences that offended some" or anything wishy washy.
On the occasions I have interacted with journalists, they get half of it wrong, misquotes abound, and sometimes it all spins out of control no matter your best efforts.SUPER weak sauce the reporter removed it. Remember when we used to have "journalism"?
YeahSUPER weak sauce the reporter removed it. Remember when we used to have "journalism"?
I wonder if Jay Harris ever did anything besides 45+16 before he retired45 +16! I think Recht or some else at Harvard showed this had better cosmesis
Their "kids are already through college."We can be the crazy plane lady yelling that “that mfer is not real” regarding our doom or we can do something about it. You folks know where the “leaders” are
Right now many of the SOAP hellpits are having departmental efforts to prevent being on SOAP again. Same as every year the solution is interview more people, interview those you have previously not interviewed, lower standards, etc. of course contracting is never a thought. The loser soapers are the real RIGGERS preventing market correction.Their "kids are already through college."
Seriously, any med student considering this field in 2023 better be amenable to retraining in 2033 (or sooner).
these places really will have to recruit internationally. It would not surprise me at all if Dan Golden is on a Caribbean med school tour or organizing a meet and greet with medics from the disbanded Russian Wagner group.Right now many of the SOAP hellpits are having departmental efforts to prevent being on SOAP again. Same as every year the solution is interview more people, interview those you have previously not interviewed, lower standards, etc. of course contracting is never a thought. The loser soapers are the real RIGGERS preventing market correction.
He is now in a different institution i saw on Twitter. But yes many of the hellpits have opened up things to the point of taking anybody with a pulse. There is no way to block SOAP which means the field is doomed.these places really will have to recruit internationally. It would not surprise me at all if Dan Golden is on a Caribbean med school tour or organizing a meet and greet with medics from the disbanded Russian Wagner group.
He is now in a different institution i saw on Twitter. But yes many of the hellpits have opened up things to the point of taking anybody with a pulse. There is no way to block SOAP which means the field is doomed.
I knew in medical school that ER was doomed because they had multiple PAs/NPs which had done a “fellowship” essentially acting as attendingsIt has been completely obvious that things would play out this way for about 5 years now. There is zero evidence that spots not filled in the first round of the match will then simply go unfilled for the following 5 years. Programs have all lowered their standards considerably and for the lowest tier programs the only barrier to entry is the need to complete a US intern year and be able to get a resident medical license. Same basic thing is happening with the ER programs.
5 fraction APBI a la Livi; Florence trial.I think it’s time to turn the ship around… my proposal is to lean into it by showing the world how important radiation is by allowing local recurrences to rise and we go full in on salvage radiation therapy.
We’ve lost being able to come in the front door with upfront definitive radiation in almost all disease sites. Let the “cool kids” mess up and we wait to be the “hero.”
Most pts I've encountered seem to have a much smaller issue with 1-3 weeks of RT vs several years of AI therapy.5 fraction APBI a la Livi; Florence trial.
Main argument against whole breast RT is toxicity..... or travel / many weeks of treatment.
If those are a non-issue.... then why would you with-hold the local control benefit?
Establish the pattern now.
I see everyone commenting on radiation instead of endocrine therapy and I know we’re all eagerly waiting on Europa, but is there any data to support omission of endocrine therapy? I am aware of the poor compliance with endocrine therapy
Yeah this is the real deal here. Important chart. We already know it works better.Below is from NSABP B21. Tam alone loses to XRT alone, and both lose to RT + Tam.
No big evaluation since. But if Tam alone is analogous to AI alone, then RT alone should be more efficacious.
View attachment 375789
I knew in medical school that ER was doomed because they had multiple PAs/NPs which had done a “fellowship” essentially acting as attendings
Below is from NSABP B21. Tam alone loses to XRT alone, and both lose to RT + Tam.
No big evaluation since. But if Tam alone is analogous to AI alone, then RT alone should be more efficacious.
View attachment 375789
We do have several oligomet SBRT trials in the pipeline, but honestly doing SBRT to 5 oligomets and getting reimbursed for a single SBRT course is demoralizing. Hypofrac breast with boost has better professional reimbursement.Okay so
1) I don’t love studies like this but …
2) It’s Canadian. They need throughput and are hyper focused on cost
We can think bigger and better and we don’t.
If Whelan’s institution and nation need this, I don’t fault them.
RT in ‘Merica is cheap (compared to pills, chemo, IO), effective and safe. We don’t think big. We don’t build.
It’s our academic centers.
Indians out here be doing VMAT breast palliation studies (good) and we count the number of people with certain demographic features (bad)
Most pts I've encountered seem to have a much smaller issue with 1-3 weeks of RT vs several years of AI therapy.
Bingo
But but but…luminal A. We finally found a subgroup!
If America had been, for a good while prior to now, rigorously prescribing 5 fraction RT in an evidence based fashion for the proper patients… which should arguably be 26/5 partial breast (even instead of 30/5 because probably less risk for side effects with 26)… I doubt the paper in NEJM today about omitting RT for luminal A would be appealing for publishing or interesting to read. It would be unTITillating.Okay so
1) I don’t love studies like this but …
2) It’s Canadian. They need throughput and are hyper focused on cost
We can think bigger and better and we don’t.
If Whelan’s institution and nation need this, I don’t fault them.
RT in ‘Merica is cheap (compared to pills, chemo, IO), effective and safe. We don’t think big. We don’t build.
It’s our academic centers.
Indians out here be doing VMAT breast palliation studies (good) and we count the number of people with certain demographic features (bad)
Can recall the breast rad oncs at an old job whine about going from 25-30 fractions to 15-20 fractions (only 5 year data!) and how their rvu target should be lower (and everyone else's higher by consequence) while at the same time demanding 100% resident coverage and APPs to help them out. Leaders in the field -- writ broadly now.If America had been, for a good while prior to now, rigorously prescribing 5 fraction RT in an evidence based fashion for the proper patients… which should arguably be 26/5 partial breast (even instead of 30/5 because probably less risk for side effects with 26)… I doubt the paper in NEJM today about omitting RT for luminal A would be appealing for publishing or interesting to read. It would be unTITillating.
But we f****** couldn’t do 5 fraction for the number one RT indication in America because it would have unemployed too many academics and literally shut some academic programs down not to mention community programs. Over supply is like ionizing X-ray induced cell death, killing us directly and indirectly.
50-60% of all breast cancers. Big ass subgroup.But but but…luminal A. We finally found a subgroup!
You could cut 'em half without all that.50-60% of all breast cancers. Big ass subgroup.
Local recurrences will go up after 5 years (they happen forever in ER+ breast cancer) and I'm guessing in a 55 y/o their lifetime risk of local recurrence without XRT might reach 10%?
It doesn't matter. Armies of navigators and survivorship plans and PCPs will catch the recurrences early. You'll treat then, maybe 5% of the subgroup that you were treating before.
Combine this with the little bump we are experiencing of 75 year olds getting diagnosed with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer by MRI fusion biopsy (and Uro sometimes ordering Decipher on these guys). This population will go away too.
Now look at your census without stage I, 55+ luminal A patients and 70+intermediate risk prostate cancer patients.
Yeah. We could cut working numbers in half.