New Edition of Chao: Management Decisions (?)

[z_squared]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Does anyone know if they are coming out with a new edition of Chao + Perez's "Radiation Oncology: Management Decisions" anytime soon.

Wondering if I should buy the 2nd edition (2001) now or to hold off.

Thanks in advance!

Zee

 

[IndyXRT]

Does anyone know if they are coming out with a new edition of Chao + Perez's "Radiation Oncology: Management Decisions" anytime soon.

Wondering if I should buy the 2nd edition (2001) now or to hold off.

Thanks in advance!

Zee

I don't know the answer to your question; however, I own a copy of the current edition and have found it to be nearly completely useless. I have used it twice in the two years that I have owned it. I would recommend seeking a more useful book. Just my two cents.

 

[Thaiger75]

I don't know the answer to your question; however, I own a copy of the current edition and have found it to be nearly completely useless. I have used it twice in the two years that I have owned it. I would recommend seeking a more useful book. Just my two cents.

I would disagree. I think it's a quick reference guide for review and a decent place to start reading, but I wouldn't use that as your primary source of info or as your "bible".

 

[pikachu]

so which book do you consider the "bible?"

 

[G'ville Nole]

so which book do you consider the "bible?"

To this point, I've been pretty happy w/ the Cox text. In general it provides a concise but thorough treatment of most body sites (CNS is a notable exception). Our junior faculty hold that it's a little too "Cliff's Notes" for actual board prep, and that it would be to our advantage to have one of the major texts (Perez, Gunderson, or Leibel) in our possession.

I bit the bullet and got the Perez. It is pretty dense, and the volume of sheer data included in it makes it a pretty tough read. BUT--for things like conventional field set-ups (which I'm told comes up all the time on orals), it is absolute money!

I think there's a Chao floating around here somewhere; I haven't picked it up this year, FWIW.

 

[IndyXRT]

I've been using Leibel and have been pleased. It has enough detail for most topics, but not so much that it's overwhelming (like Perez). However, if you're trying to figure out how to treat something obscure, Perez is a good place to start.

Edit: the residents in the class behind me got Cox instead of Leibel (the program chooses which text to give you to start with). They are constantly borrowing the Leibel from the library.

 

[stephew]

there is no one text. Leibel is one, Gunderson is another. There is also Cox. I like LEibel but the other texts have chapters here and there that are stronger (the old Leibel was weak on GI compared to Gunderson). Perez is better for sim fields. Basically pick one you like and browse the better chapters in the others fvrom the library. Chao is useless as a primary text but good for bullet points. Uptodate.com is a great souce for getting to know what is the important literature out there.

 

[radonc]

agreed-
i personally like leibel over perez because i feel perez is way too wordy. his chapter on cervical cancer is 100 pages, and its very easy to be inundated with study after study.

one great text i just bought is by cox, mosby radiation oncology: rationale, techniques and results, its great for residents. very easy to read, focuses on the landmark studies, and great as an precursor to tackling leibel or perez. its basically written by md anderson docs, so it highlights a lot of their experience as well.

 

[stephew]

dont make the mistake of only looking how one group does things, even if its a great group. obviously as part of the basics for study, you dont want throw the net too wide; but as you dig deeper, make sure you look around and away from one group's practice.