large textbook

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
When last I compared them, I found Gunderson and Tepper far better than Perez and Brady. Both have large sections that refer to the "ebook" version.

These days NCCN, RadOncReview, RadOncQuestions, UpToDate are gonna cover your bases
 
About the first fifty to one hundred pages of Brady and Perez are pretty good, and I find myself re-reading it every few years or so. But that’s just because I’m a pedant and thus a secret Ed Halperin fan.
 
TheWallnerus said:
About the first fifty to one hundred pages of Brady and Perez are pretty good, and I find myself re-reading it every few years or so. But that’s just because I’m a pedant and thus a secret Ed Halperin fan.
Click to expand...
I've read the intro section to Perez and Brady and agree it's well done.

The nice thing about the textbooks is the historical context that you lack in some of the other resources.
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
Textbooks are irrelevant except for the historical context they provide. By definition once published they are out of date.
Click to expand...
“Things are just changing so fast. Take this textbook here. It only came out last year. And it’s already out of date.”

“My god man. How do you find time to read?”

“Oh. No. This? I wrote it.”
 
TheWallnerus said:
“Things are just changing so fast. Take this textbook here. It only came out last year. And it’s already out of date.”

“My god man. How do you find time to read?”

“Oh. No. This? I wrote it.”
Click to expand...
I am old school and remember learning very efficiently from textbooks. We also hear from SDN that radiation oncology is such a stagnant field so logically out of date textbooks should still have clinically useful data. Isn't 60 Gy still a standard dose for GBM?

That being said, NCCN guidelines, E-contour and occasionally UpToDate are my preferred references at work these days to the extent that I practice as a tech-enhanced human.
 
theradiator said:
I am old school and remember learning very efficiently from textbooks. We also hear from SDN that radiation oncology is such a stagnant field so logically out of date textbooks should still have clinically useful data. Isn't 60 Gy still a standard dose for GBM?

That being said, NCCN guidelines, E-contour and occasionally UpToDate are my preferred references at work these days to the extent that I practice as a tech-enhanced human.
Click to expand...
Have textbooks. Read textbooks. Put away the textbooks. “First must walk, then run. Not my rules, Daniel-san… Nature’s rules.”

Know the rules well so you can break them good.
 
At this point, the only material I ever need to look up is not in a textbook. Uptodate for non-cancer gen/med type stuff, NCCN guidelines for bread and butter rad onc that I don't usually treat... google scholar for everything else
 
Lamount said:
At this point, the only material I ever need to look up is not in a textbook. Uptodate for non-cancer gen/med type stuff, NCCN guidelines for bread and butter rad onc that I don't usually treat... google scholar for everything else
Click to expand...
To study the phenomenon of disease without books is to sail an uncharted sea, while to study books without patients is not to go to sea at all.

– Sir William Osler (old guy who never used the Internet)
 
TheWallnerus said:
To study the phenomenon of disease without books is to sail an uncharted sea, while to study books without patients is not to go to sea at all.

– Sir William Osler (old guy who never used the Internet)
Click to expand...
1663610750536.png


Please. Do. Not. Say. Yes.
 
It is amazing how well thought out and detailed a book like Gunderson is. I have a 2007 edition of Clinical Radiation Oncology. It's beautiful and never read. For the person interested in the historical art of radonc however, it would be an incredible reference.

Also, lots of theory in the book, which I love but almost never use. Evidence based medicine has replaced/devalued the theoretical approach to medicine (except for psych and pancreatic cancer).
 
communitydoc13 said:
It is amazing how well thought out and detailed a book like Gunderson is. I have a 2007 edition of Clinical Radiation Oncology. It's beautiful and never read. For the person interested in the historical art of radonc however, it would be an incredible reference.

Also, lots of theory in the book, which I love but almost never use. Evidence based medicine has replaced/devalued the theoretical approach to medicine (except for psych and pancreatic cancer).
Click to expand...
Be careful you don’t catch a case of folie à deux if you hang around rad oncs that irradiate pancreases
 
You guys are funny as always, but I do need a large text to impress medstudents and to appropriate some hospital educational funds. So Perez, Gunderson, or Liebel (if I recall right)?
 
Publishers relying on this mindset. Stop spending $ on historical artifacts. Let the university library buy one copy for future scholars. Use the development resources more wisely
 
Looks like none of the major texts have been updated since 2018, is that right? Of the resources suggested above, only Uptodate is a reasonable narrative. Most teaching hospitals provide free access.
 
Last edited:
A_DeMichele said:
Looks like none of the major texts have been updated since 2018, is that right? Of the resources suggested above, only Update is a reasonable narrative. Most teaching hospitals provide free access.
Click to expand...
With all the wellness modules and time spent in phone with Evicore nowadays, will we ever get an updated major rad onc textbook again?!
 
seper said:
You guys are funny as always, but I do need a large text to impress medstudents and to appropriate some hospital educational funds. So Perez, Gunderson, or Liebel (if I recall right)?
Click to expand...
Modern day med students do not know what textbooks are. It‘s like if you were an 80 year old journalist trying to impress your interns by showing them your typewriter.
 
seper said:
You guys are funny as always, but I do need a large text to impress medstudents and to appropriate some hospital educational funds. So Perez, Gunderson, or Liebel (if I recall right)?
Click to expand...

I liked Gunderson/Tepper more than Perez/Brady when I was a PGY-2.

That being said, the essentials of rad onc book from CCF is actually the thing that is most clinically useful but not as flowery of writing as the big boys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Wanted: a large underutilized vault to convert to proton therapy
2
Replies
99
Views
5K
IonsAreOurFuture
I
Kroll2013
liver SBRT for single large lesion
Replies
23
Views
2K
ramsesthenice
R
R
Academic Medical Centers: Too Large for Their Own Health?
Replies
15
Views
2K
deleted941485
D
yeasterbunny
textbook recommendations
Replies
6
Views
3K
yeasterbunny
yeasterbunny
M
PORT for a G3 NSCLC (Large-cell) pT2aN1, Stage IIB, Level 10 LN 2.5 cm with ECE?
Replies
12
Views
2K
medgator
M
Top