large textbook
Started by seper
Shouldn’t textbook length decrease as indications for radiation diminish. Willing to bet there won’t be a GI section in 10 years.
I keep my Khan in a different room, same purpose otherwise
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.
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.
Textbooks are irrelevant except for the historical context they provide. By definition once published they are out of date.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I have never read a RadOnc textbook, though I keep a few around.
I did just use one to flatten a copy of my birth certificate that got smushed in the mail.
It's the most useful thing that book has ever done.
I did just use one to flatten a copy of my birth certificate that got smushed in the mail.
It's the most useful thing that book has ever done.
“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 And it’s already out of date.”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.”
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 We also hear from SDN that radiation oncology is such a stagnant field so logically out of date textbooks should still have clinically useful data.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.
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.
There are two types of CNS tumors: 50Gy-tumors and 60Gy-tumors. The rest are exotic stuff.
54??
No such thing as a 54 Gy tumor!
Acoustic?? Atypical Meningioma?
ACN can be controlled with 50 Gy just fine.
Atypical meningiomas need 60 Gy.
We need @Neuronix on this thread!
Last edited:
Two types of breast cancer now: 26 Gy tumors and the 0 Gy tumors.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
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)
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).
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).
Be careful you don’t catch a case of folie à deux if you hang around rad oncs that irradiate pancreases
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:
If you want textbooks, I suggest the Nancy Lee planning book, the Cleveland clinic red book, videtic treatment planning book, and the green question book. I also like rad onc review online, econtour, and the Estes tables.
With all the wellness modules and time spent in phone with Evicore nowadays, will we ever get an updated major rad onc textbook again?!
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sweet! That means my chapter is still in press 🤣
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.
They also don’t know what a “classroom” is
Not sure if that isn't a good thing...I never went to class (all the material you were tested on were in the notes)
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.
