D

deleted4401

It's fantastic. Easy to read, good pre-chapter summary pages, excellent tables, charts, pictures. Each disease site has a little summary on how 3D/IMRT is currently used or not used. The radiation techniqes are well described, and the portals are shown in color photographs on DRRs. There is treatment algorithms and follow-up algorithms at the end of each chapter, as well. The important papers are summarized very nicely in their own paragraphs, rather than just a series of numbers. And at the beginning, there is an 'overview' of the regional topic (i.e. Gillian Thomas writes a 10-12 page overview of gyn onc, with current issues and contraversies).

I'm not sure if it's because I really like it, or if it is because I can't stand reading Perez ...

-S
 

bobloblaw

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 8, 2005
45
32
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
not to sound like an informercial, but I agree. I loved the first edition gunderson and am glad that they finally updated it... this is from someone who actually does like perez (which I have heard is also being updated this year?)
 

Thaiger75

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Nov 3, 2003
345
0
Status (Visible)
I'm a little biased, but I have to concur. Our (former) chair was very excited about the new edition. The nice color photos are always nice and love the intro summary and algorithm charts.
 
About the Ads

chuwoods

Junior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 28, 2003
41
0
Status (Visible)
How do you feel this book compares to the Leibel text (Textbook of Rad Onc) Which would you get?

thanks
 

Thaiger75

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Nov 3, 2003
345
0
Status (Visible)
How do you feel this book compares to the Leibel text (Textbook of Rad Onc) Which would you get?

thanks

Each textbook has its own strengths in different tumor sites, so that's hard to say. But, again, I am biased, so I would get the Gunderson/Tepper book, for the same reasons I previously posted.
 

BraggPeak

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 3, 2007
240
1
Status (Visible)
Is the new Leibel any good? The last one was very readable, but with a lot of mistakes. The new one is available for kindle/ipad. Any idea which one might be better to buy?
 

seper

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Dec 22, 2010
1,779
723
Status (Visible)
I've found Leibel to be the best current RadOnc text. My only complaint is the lack of detailed description of XRT techniques, but that was not the goal of the text.
I wonder if the new Gunderson would be even better though.
 

BraggPeak

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 3, 2007
240
1
Status (Visible)
Just wondering what people think about having the kindle version of the book. On one hand, who will ever carry around a huge textbook these days, but on the other what's the difference with the kindle vs. online version?
 

XRT999

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
4
0
Status (Visible)
How would you guys compare Perez/Brady vs Liebel? I probably have enough $$ for one, and am wondering which one I should go with...
 

RadRadRad

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Aug 24, 2010
186
143
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
How would you guys compare Perez/Brady vs Liebel? I probably have enough $$ for one, and am wondering which one I should go with...

I'd hold out for the new Gunderson if you can wait a few months. Although some of the chapters in Liebel are fine, others are just too basic in my opinion. I tried using it for some topics for clinical boards and frequently couldn't find the topics/answers I needed. Also, I found a number of errors in the portions I read. Perez is good, but can trend a little too much in the other direction IMO (although I'd personally rather have too much info in a text than too little). I think Gunderson is a nice blend between the two. The last version also had treatment algorithms which can be useful for topics/cancers you rarely encounter and for boards.
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 9 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.