Gfunk6

And to think . . . I hesitated
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Apr 16, 2004
3,604
573
481
SF Bay Area
Status
Attending Physician
There was an excellent editorial in the Red Journal by Eli Glastein (U Penn) regarding the war of over technology and coroporate sponsorship.

Here's the back story:

Clifton Ling (originally MSKCC --> Varian) published an article claiming that Varian's RapidArc >> Tomotherapy.

Minesh Mehta (U Wisconsin, receives $$$ from Tomotherapy) published an editorial stating that Ling's study was deeply flawed. Among Mehta's arguments are that Ling " . . . acts as a corporate employee."

As Glastein points out however, Mehta is a paid consultant for Tomotherapy so . . . pot meet kettle. As trainees, Glastein writes, we should focus on actually treating our patients appropriately rather than arguing over technological minutae.
 

Attachments

medgator

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Sep 20, 2004
3,784
614
281
Status
Attending Physician
As trainees, Glastein writes, we should focus on actually treating our patients appropriately rather than arguing over technological minutae.
Agreed. Tomo is nice for things like TMI and CSI, but has the major limitation of co-planar treatments only. Rapidarc is great for creating competent IMRT plans while allowing you to use your machine time more effectively for IMRT patients (and still allows for table kicks when needed). Seriously, tomo treatments can take a long time :sleep:

Bottom line, either is good for routine daily practice :D I've probably seen nicer coplanar plans with tomo, but either of them gets the job done.