Rad Onc Twitter

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted1002574
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I get these approved by Evicore all the time including today in peer to peer. They do sometimes deny in this setting and then I appeal directly to payer, as one does. Payer typically approves.

Earlier this year, I had a patient who had a temporal brain met treated with SRS. Unfortunately, it was not successful and the tumor spread through the skull base foramina causing severe temporal headaches and radiating mandibular pain.

I requested SBRT in this patient with a solitary met because it was directly abutting his prior SRS field. The "peer" RO reviewer asked me "can you do it with 3D?"

I almost fell off my chair . . .
 
Proposed:

The supply of radiation oncologists, and ostensibly therefore its "intellectual capital," has been on a significant upswing for 10+ years. What hath that wrought? The only innovation (not protons... they're 30+ years old now) we've truly seen is in the shrinkage of treatments. Thus causing a shrinkage in reimbursements. Thus causing a shrinkage in daily case loads. Thus causing the "small field" of radiation oncology to downsize its overall "global self"—even as the number of rad onc humans grew—in the eyes of patients and referring physicians. Don't misunderstand: not downsizing in a bad way per se. But downsizing in an impactful/importance/"high stakes" fashion: six weeks of breast radiotherapy seems scary and a slog. But 6 weeks it was, 6 weeks it would always be, and that was the only option. Any other option was anathema. Then came "innovation." Ponder it from afar... to laypersons (patients and non-rad onc MDs) 6+ weeks sounds more complex and requires more hand-holding and more of a polymathic captain than a much simpler-sounding 5 treatments only. Radiation oncology seemed to be accomplishing more and to possess more cachet when it was an even smaller field. Exclusivity and a "black box" can be its own protection. To quote Zietman: "We have hitched our wagon to a modality rather than an anatomic site; this puts us at considerable risk for future irrelevance." Have we not increasingly but perhaps unwittingly downsized the modality the last decade?

Discuss.

Depends on how you present it. Prostate SBRT sounds much more involved and complex to non rad oncs than longer courses because of high doses per fraction. So I agree in general that the main "innovation" is to drop fractions and thus drop demand and we need to shrink but disagree that this necessarily means other people think we are doing less complicated stuff
 
Earlier this year, I had a patient who had a temporal brain met treated with SRS. Unfortunately, it was not successful and the tumor spread through the skull base foramina causing severe temporal headaches and radiating mandibular pain.

I requested SBRT in this patient with a solitary met because it was directly abutting his prior SRS field. The "peer" RO reviewer asked me "can you do it with 3D?"

I almost fell off my chair . . .

Had a denial from Evicore for something similar, known quantity reviewer, well-known flunky. I wrote a letter to payer that was brutal even for me and the payer overturned Evicore's denial within 24 hours of their receipt of the letter.
 
Had a denial from Evicore for something similar, known quantity reviewer, well-known flunky. I wrote a letter to payer that was brutal even for me and the payer overturned Evicore's denial within 24 hours of their receipt of the letter.
Odd thing is these board certified rad onc reviewers don't get a tangible reward, certainly not even a buck, for every denial that they do. It really is a case of Befehl ist Befehl and human nature at work. All about towing the party line, being a good worker, and maybe one day being a top guy in the corporate food chain telling all the other reviewers what to do.
 
Had a denial from Evicore for something similar, known quantity reviewer, well-known flunky. I wrote a letter to payer that was brutal even for me and the payer overturned Evicore's denial within 24 hours of their receipt of the letter.

Probably the same nasty individual I dealt with recently. They tried to play coy and were intentionally obtuse about wanting to know the reason other than metastatic disease for the treatment (so where exaclty is he hurting? Why would you treat him if he's not hurting, And the indication for radiation here is what exactly..., etc.), then were almost giddy when I uttered the "O-word," proceeded to lecture me on how SBRT for oligiomets was totally inappropriate and that she would personally report the prior approval that I had obtained on this patient for a different site and would reprimand the reviewer that granted it stating that it was inappropriate.
 
Probably the same nasty individual I dealt with recently. They tried to play coy and were intentionally obtuse about wanting to know the reason other than metastatic disease for the treatment (so where exaclty is he hurting? Why would you treat him if he's not hurting, And the indication for radiation here is what exactly..., etc.), then were almost giddy when I uttered the "O-word," proceeded to lecture me on how SBRT for oligiomets was totally inappropriate and that she would personally report the prior approval that I had obtained on this patient for a different site and would reprimand the reviewer that granted it stating that it was inappropriate.

Who was it? Name her.
 
Probably the same nasty individual I dealt with recently. They tried to play coy and were intentionally obtuse about wanting to know the reason other than metastatic disease for the treatment (so where exaclty is he hurting? Why would you treat him if he's not hurting, And the indication for radiation here is what exactly..., etc.), then were almost giddy when I uttered the "O-word," proceeded to lecture me on how SBRT for oligiomets was totally inappropriate and that she would personally report the prior approval that I had obtained on this patient for a different site and would reprimand the reviewer that granted it stating that it was inappropriate.

Was it the lady from Miami? I had the pleasure of speaking to her recently, extremely unprofessional individual
 
Just another FU to rad onc residents, in case we weren't clear enough.

Love,
The ABR





i feel like there are people still who are persistently surprised by how bad the ABR is and our so called “leaders”. Pretty funny stuff. Time to wake up folks!
 
Potters may be dead wrong on expansion but does say some spot on things here, from ROhub:

Time for the ALARA alarm!

Hi again. All is well this week. Well, not really. The continued, and accelerated partisanship of the pandemic is alarming, as is the lack of a nationally coordinated reopening. We do have much to celebrate, as the stay in place rules clearly had a positive impact to most of the country, but our inability to couple that success with how to move forward in a coordinated manner is disappointing, to say the least.

This week, though, I am really upset and angry. Angry with (some of) us; radiation oncologists.

I do not use this forum lightly and have appreciated the opportunity to journal our efforts in New York. It has served as a catharsis for me personally and based on emails, informative to many.

I was asked to referee a manuscript and will shield the authors and journal. This manuscript was to outline the successful implementation of Virtual On Treatment Visits.

With the impending tsunami of COVID-19 ASTRO rightly requested several changes from CMS not knowing how things would be and fortunately they were granted. One of these requests was to perform On Treatment Visits via telehealth. That said, an arrow in the quiver is better to have but does not serve as an excuse for its use. I'll explain.

The authors of this study suggest an ALARA analogy to avoid the virus; time and distance. Makes sense. Everything anyone can do to limit risk is worthwhile. But who is 'anyone'?

There are many things wrong with this. First, it is critical during the pandemic that our patients are hyper-acutely managed during treatment to avoid side effects, ED's and hospitalizations. This may require several weekly OTV's and more vigilant management by the physican.

Next, our patients are risking themselves to come daily for treatment. Some using public transportation. It is well recognized that fear of healthcare is a significant collateral casualty of this pandemic. Patients are petrified of us-healthcare, but they are treating their cancer, so they come. And our health system's internal marketing data suggests that hearing from their physician is THE most important factor to allay these fears. Our patients are physically present for care – we should be physically present to see them.

And lastly, all I will say is what about our Therapists! They are just like everyone else, fearful for what they do, which is to literally and physically treat all our patients daily without social distancing. They are at the front lines and it is most fortunate that during this pandemic they have remained healthy and engaged. They represent the real hero's for radiation oncology!

And with a final call out to our MA's, nurses and ACP's who room the patients and take vital signs and initial assessments. And then to have them turn on the virtual tele-program for us to do a virtual OTV?

ALARA -shmara. This ain't radioactivity. Those who do not run to the fire to help put it out serve no good. And to think we took an oath to do this, not our techs. And to think, virtual OTV's should be celebrated in a peer reviewed publication that will go on a few CV's?

Do me a favor this week and take 30 minutes from one of your days and sit at your machine with your techs; buy them lunch, give them a gift card and celebrate what it is they do every day for our patients. And then take your patient, gloved hand to gloved hand to an exam room for an OTV while telling your nurse its ok, you got it covered.

I am glad that ASTRO helped to have resources available if needed, like the opportunity to do a virtual OTV. Because the only way I would use it is if I was sick and needed to see my patients on treatment from being quarantined. That's an ALARA that makes sense.

This is my opinion and I welcome everyone's comments – good or bad.



------------------------------
Louis Potters
Department Chairman
Northwell Health
Lake Success NY
(516) 321-2248
------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Potters may be dead wrong on expansion but does say some spot on things here, from ROhub:
I don't disagree with him as I have previously (pre?)echoed these sentiments.
But can we get a psych consult now because rad onc has a neurosis.
The head is calling for telehealth, reduced supervision, etc. The body's arguing against the head?
Neurotic.

EDIT
Potters: telehealth for rad onc bad.
News: increased telehealth for radiology great! Less stress, more productive.
Rad onc bigwigs/coalminers/FDA chiefs: but rad onc needs to be more like radiology
Neurotic!
 
Last edited:
N
I don't disagree with him as I have previously (pre?)echoed these sentiments.
But can we get a psych consult now because rad onc has a neurosis.
The head is calling for telehealth, reduced supervision, etc. The body's arguing against the head?
Neurotic.

EDIT
Potters: telehealth for rad onc bad.
News: increased telehealth for radiology great! Less stress, more productive.
Rad onc bigwigs/coalminers/FDA chiefs: but rad onc needs to be more like radiology
Neurotic!


different people can have different opinions.

Im sure people here are split as well. Many like the freedom of telehealth.

me personally I tend to side with potters and like seeing my patients I’m treating if I can
 
N



different people can have different opinions.

Im sure people here are split as well. Many like the freedom of telehealth.

me personally I tend to side with potters and like seeing my patients I’m treating if I can
Not sure we can even get into a "good" debate on this... we've all got well honed opinions... but we have two things (maybe 3) at play: 1) what do doctors like, 2) what do patients like, ... and 3) what is showable to be beneficial by evidence.
Potters says "First, it is critical during the pandemic that our patients are hyper-acutely managed during treatment to avoid side effects, ED's and hospitalizations." It's critical to "hyper-acutely" manage? What does this mean? Seeing a patient every week is the most hyper-acute management in outpatient medicine most likely. He wants hyper-hyper-acute it sounds like. And will it have benefits? Debatable. And does the patient really want me escorting him or her "gloved hand to gloved hand to an exam room" (Potter's words) for a chit-chat 2 or more times... every week? God forbid how often we should see them if you're doing any BID treatments for anything.
And do you know what's shown the biggest boost in lung cancer survival in the last five years? NOT seeing patients, at least in person, routinely, and letting them check in via a form of telehealth.
 
Not sure we can even get into a "good" debate on this... we've all got well honed opinions... but we have two things (maybe 3) at play: 1) what do doctors like, 2) what do patients like, ... and 3) what is showable to be beneficial by evidence.
Potters says "First, it is critical during the pandemic that our patients are hyper-acutely managed during treatment to avoid side effects, ED's and hospitalizations." It's critical to "hyper-acutely" manage? What does this mean? Seeing a patient every week is the most hyper-acute management in outpatient medicine most likely. He wants hyper-hyper-acute it sounds like. And will it have benefits? Debatable. And does the patient really want me escorting him or her "gloved hand to gloved hand to an exam room" (Potter's words) for a chit-chat 2 or more times... every week? God forbid how often we should see them if you're doing any BID treatments for anything.
And do you know what's shown the biggest boost in lung cancer survival in the last five years? NOT seeing patients, at least in person, routinely, and letting them check in via a form of telehealth.


Can I ask you a question?

You don't believe much in contouring, much in seeing patients, much in supervision, much in plan evaluation or dose mattering, much in.....anything

....so what exactly do you see the reason for us to be paid so well in the future?
 
Remember when it was tough to get a pub in the red journal? Now, you write an article describing a “senior service” and straight to the CV it goes.


It's the opposite in some ways, look back to Red Journal in the early part of the 2010s and they used to publish lots of retrospective clinical research. Now that wouldn't sniff the Red Journal.
 
It's the opposite in some ways, look back to Red Journal in the early part of the 2010s and they used to publish lots of retrospective clinical research. Now that wouldn't sniff the Red Journal.
Yes, because it would border on useful for clinical practice. No room for that when you can describe what a senior resident does.
 
Yes, because it would border on useful for clinical practice.

No because when it comes to clinical stuff they have significantly tightened their standards. Mostly prospective stuff now. A lot of the types of things that used to be able to get in RedJ now heads to PRO, Advances, or lesser journals.
 
I’m pretty sure there’s plenty of restrospective reviews and “expert opinion” pieces in red journal. Anything remotely practice changing goes blue.
 
agree that they don't get much practice changing stuff, that heads to JCO or JAMA or Lancet.

however, their focus on the clinical side is prospective data, there are many of these that aren't fit for the bigger journals. They will redirect your retrospective single institution analysis of brainstem SRS to PRO, Advances. That used to be able to get into red journal back in day.
 
I submitted plenty of retrospective studies "back in the day" and most were referred on at that time too. You needed to be answering a pretty good/relevant question with a large group. of patients. I'm sure there were exceptions back then, but scanning the current issues there's a handful of retrospective studies and lit search analyses to go with all the editorials and opinion pieces. "Here's our experience with synchronous lung primaries and SBRT". That sounds like a dozen projects I did as a resident.


"Back in the day" the prospective data you would get was primary results of RTOG trials published in red journal. Not institutional Phase 1/2 stuff like we see now.
 
No because when it comes to clinical stuff they have significantly tightened their standards. Mostly prospective stuff now. A lot of the types of things that used to be able to get in RedJ now heads to PRO, Advances, or lesser journals.
The actual useful practice-changing clinical stuff ends up in the JCO
 
The actual useful practice-changing clinical stuff ends up in the JCO
Depending "how" practice changing it is, it seems like that tends to land in NEJM. Strong hypothesis generating or minor impact lands JCO. Here's a project we did or here's the result of a survey I emailed to everyone is all red journal.
 
Depending "how" practice changing it is, it seems like that tends to land in NEJM. Strong hypothesis generating or minor impact lands JCO. Here's a project we did or here's the result of a survey I emailed to everyone is all red journal.
Can't remember the last radiation study that ended up in nejm... Iirc maybe the cardiac SBRT study did that but that's about it.
 
Can't remember the last radiation study that ended up in nejm... Iirc maybe the cardiac SBRT study did that but that's about it.
A few important ones in Lancet of late...



Pissing contest for sure but IF for Lancet is 59, NEJM 70
 
So this is happening... protons and covid since they go hand in hand 🙂



Advances in Radiation Oncology
During the COVID Era
Updates from Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University
WHEN: May 21, 4 - 4:30 p.m.
Join Winship radiation oncologists virtually to discuss updates
regarding cancer care and COVID-19. This interactive discussion
includes Winship’s expertise in proton therapy and an innovative
trial to treat COVID-19 patients with low dose chest radiation
therapy (LD-RT).

Walter J. Curran, Jr., MD, FACR, FASCO
Executive Director, Winship Cancer Institute
of Emory University

Mohammad Khan, MD, PhD, DABR, FACRO
Medical Student Clerkship Director, Department of
Radiation Oncology

Mark McDonald, MD
Medical Director, Emory Proton Therapy Center

To learn more and register, please visit
emory.edu/!radoncwebinar0521
 
A few important ones in Lancet of late...



Pissing contest for sure but IF for Lancet is 59, NEJM 70

There have been a lot of amazing radonc pubs in lancet and lancet oncology

The problem is very few of these are practice changing in terms of increasing volume or $$$

They are either decreased fxn, P2 small studies of oligomets

ORATOR trial another good one recently but conclusion understated IMO. It should have been RT >>>> TORS since the whole principle of TORS was reduced side effects and that wasn't seen

STAMPEDE is the only exception, but not universal implementation as Abi also has OS benefit so wrestling with med oncs
 
There have been a lot of amazing radonc pubs in lancet and lancet oncology

The problem is very few of these are practice changing in terms of increasing volume or $$$

They are either decreased fxn, P2 small studies of oligomets

ORATOR trial another good one recently but conclusion understated IMO. It should have been RT >>>> TORS since the whole principle of TORS was reduced side effects and that wasn't seen

STAMPEDE is the only exception, but not universal implementation as Abi also has OS benefit so wrestling with med oncs

This is going to be a post without "snark" @Lamount 😛

In all seriousness, oligomets and SBRT lung vs sx will determine future growth potential of radonc

Need to stop having multiple single or few institution oligomet trials for self-promotion sake and really focus and develop LARGE P3 studies

And as annoying as Drew M is, VALOR can potentially change the game for us in perception as long as SBRT is equivalent (doesn't need to be better)
 
oligomets and SBRT lung vs sx will determine future growth potential of radonc
We'd better hitch our wagon to that inchoate oligometastatic wagon in the sky 'cause let me depress you with "SBRT vs lung sx"...
  • The incidence of lung cancer is falling
  • SBRT is only used in Stage I lung (for now) and that stage proportion is small
    • About 25% of lung ca's stage I, so about 57,000 stage I lung ca's per year
  • What if ALL Stage I lungs were treated with SBRT, a best possible rad onc scenario?
    • This would mean only 12 lung ca SBRT cases, per rad onc (if there are ~5000 rad oncs in America), in the US, per year.
    • (Given current lung ca rates, we actually only need 30 radiation oncologists nationwide to handle current lung SBRT volumes!)
    • But again... what if surgery vanished???
    • ...we would all do one lung SBRT. Per month. Per rad onc. If surgery vanished. And there's no new rad oncs. And people keep smoking at same rates.
 
This is going to be a post without "snark" @Lamount 😛

In all seriousness, oligomets and SBRT lung vs sx will determine future growth potential of radonc

Need to stop having multiple single or few institution oligomet trials for self-promotion sake and really focus and develop LARGE P3 studies

And as annoying as Drew M is, VALOR can potentially change the game for us in perception as long as SBRT is equivalent (doesn't need to be better)

You mean besides SABR-COMET 3, BR-001, LU-002, amongst others I'm sure?
 
You mean besides SABR-COMET 3, BR-001, LU-002, amongst others I'm sure?

SABR COMET 3 only 6 institutions not in USA

LU-002 very slowly accruing to point of multiple modifications to protocol

BR-001 is a Phase 1 trial

Smh. Trying to be positive and then they suck me back in lol
 


This is standard Mayo crap getting published b/c it's Mayo. Similar to MD Anderson retrospective chart reviews.

Yes, PGY-5 residents that are about to graduate should act like junior attendings in terms of 'running the service' for the attending in question, with minimal attending supervision. Most residents already do this, at minimum, for the at least one attending per residency program that are certified dangerous to treat patients without resident coverage doing their contours and plan evaluations.

Mind. BLOWN.
 
I know this is from a few days ago, but I just came across it and am incredulous.

I find it unbelievable that supposedly smart people "100% struggle to understand" that medical students want good employment opportunities after residency graduation. What is there, exactly, that is difficult to comprehend? I have to give CG props for explaining it, but it should be highly embarrassing to the attendings involved that she needed to.

Edit: this may have been posted before. If so I will delete.
 

Attachments

  • suchas.jpg
    suchas.jpg
    110 KB · Views: 181
Last edited:
The fact that that paper was written, and deemed novel enough to be accepted for publication speaks volumes for the educational atmosphere in radiation oncology currently.

"You mean we should be training them to be functional doctors? I thought they were just here as scribes."
 
Last edited:
The fact that that paper was written, and deemed novel enough to be accepted for publication speaks volumes for the educational atmosphere in radiation oncology currently.

"You mean we should be training them to be functional doctors? I thought they were just here as scribes."

There are still places out there that do exactly that and will continue.
 
I mean it is novel that there is a resident run clinic only. Quite novel.

i don’t know now that works billing wise.

tht would have been cool to have during training.
 
I mean it is novel that there is a resident run clinic only. Quite novel.

i don’t know now that works billing wise.

tht would have been cool to have during training.

Resident run clinic is code for further underpaying you.

Ultimately attending bills and generates RVU

Unless they going to give you bonus during that time, no incentive. You'll get a head start on attending life? Whatever, everyone figures it out
 
I know this is from a few days ago, but I just came across it and am incredulous.

I find it unbelievable that supposedly smart people "100% struggle to understand" that medical students want good employment opportunities after residency graduation. What is there, exactly, that is difficult to comprehend? I have to give CG props for explaining it, but it should be highly embarrassing to the attendings involved that she needed to.

Edit: this may have been posted before. If so I will delete.

Eh, I kinda read that as Ralph and Siker basically being like "who cares that US grads aren't applying for rad onc anymore?"... which ties into the whole "Rad Onc should be more diverse than just US MDs, so the increase of DOs, FMGs, and IMGs is a good thing for the field!!11"

These folks who love the "increased diversity of applicants" (meaning groups that historically would not have had the academic credentials to match) in Rad Onc will love to work with all the folks who would not have had a chance in Rad Onc as recently as 5 years ago.... all the DOs, IMGs, and Ophtho/derm/ortho rejects. SOAP numbers will look better for the field next year as word will get out that all you need to match rad onc is a pulse and no obvious gigantic red flags.

That's what folks in academics are hanging their hat on. The same folks who would throw a US MD without double digit publications or a 240 in the trash as recently as 5-10 years ago will be bending the knee and interviewing every applicant, including the DO/IMG with no publications and average step scores.

And then, to the academic folks, all will be back to normal, and thus no (painful) changes will need to be made for the health of the specialty.

And somewhere, Paul Wallner will laugh a great hearty laugh similar to Emperor Palpatine, having summarily predicted the downfall of the quality of the average Radiation Oncology resident. Perhaps it's not just a prediction, and Paul Wallner is Chancellor Palpatine orchestrating the Clone Wars as a means to an end - the extermination of the Jedi. What that is analogous to in the current situation is.... unknown. But maybe it will be just as much of a shocker as Order 66 was when we (eventually) got around to watching Episode 3.
 
Do you have a comment on the tweet, or is it just posting it to post it? Discussion is not anything note-worthy (at least IMO) from that twitter thread.
Between radoncgrad2019 and 2014XRT posts on here, I never have to actually get on twitter to know what's going on in the rad onc twitter-sphere
 
This is going to be a post without "snark" @Lamount 😛

In all seriousness, oligomets and SBRT lung vs sx will determine future growth potential of radonc

Need to stop having multiple single or few institution oligomet trials for self-promotion sake and really focus and develop LARGE P3 studies

And as annoying as Drew M is, VALOR can potentially change the game for us in perception as long as SBRT is equivalent (doesn't need to be better)

Agree about VALOR. One nice thing about this study is that the VA population is more reflective of actual patients with lung cancer than trial conducted at academic medical centers.
 
Is palliative xrt that hard for some? Tongue in cheek... Sortof

Maybe I'm a dismissive dingus but the concept that palliative RT is some sort of art that requires its own discipline just doesn't resonate with me.

But I also get bored by breast radiation so maybe it's just me.
 
Top