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 know has been discussed here a lot, but I cant find the breast IMRT MROQC paper. anyone have a link?
 
jondunn said:


I know has been discussed here a lot, but I cant find the breast IMRT MROQC paper. anyone have a link?
Click to expand...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of 3D-Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) in a Prospective Multicenter Cohort of Patients With Breast Cancer - PubMed

This large, prospective, multicenter comparative effectiveness study found a significant benefit from inverse-planned IMRT compared with 3DCRT in reducing acute toxicity of breast radiation therapy. Future research should identify the dosimetric differences that mediate this association and...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
I mean... making information easier to understand and access is a good thing, not a bad thing
 
jondunn said:
I mean... making information easier to understand and access is a good thing, not a bad thing
Click to expand...
I would hope that confidence intervals and similar measures were provided during the meat of the talk. Simplification can be good but not if important caveats are ignored. Science is frequently gray.
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
I would hope that confidence intervals and similar measures were provided during the meat of the talk. Simplification can be good but not if important caveats are ignored. Science is frequently gray.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree
 
I like new and interesting ways to visualize data.

Thought experiment - if we used to do info-visuals like this and then changed to the dry-dull typical journal pics, I think people would have a fit. There should be a happy medium. There is such great software to help us understand data - may as well start utilizing it.
 
What's with every non-randomized (usually retrospective) study now being "real world data." What a verbal spin this new trend is! It's real... not fake, not unreal, but real. REAL talk. REAL news. If you can't tell what's REAL anymore, we can tell you! And it's from the WORLD. It's global. It's not just from me, or my institution, or from a few institutions... it's from the WORLD. The wide WORLD of sports. The WORLD wide web. To cap it off, we have DATA. It's not biased; it's just some pure, real, unfake, from-the-whole-world DATA. As opposed to fake exoplanetary opinion.

 
TheWallnerus said:
What's with every non-randomized (usually retrospective) study now being "real world data." What a verbal spin this new trend is! It's real... not fake, not unreal, but real. REAL talk. REAL news. If you can't tell what's REAL anymore, we can tell you! And it's from the WORLD. It's global. It's not just from me, or my institution, or from a few institutions... it's from the WORLD. The wide WORLD of sports. The WORLD wide web. To cap it off, we have DATA. It's not biased; it's just some pure, real, unfake, from-the-whole-world DATA. As opposed to fake exoplanetary opinion.

Click to expand...

Am I missing something? Hasn't this question been asked and answered?
 
RadsWFA1900 said:
Deliberate oversimplification for a group of supposedly sophisticated clinicians that are versed in elementary statistics should warrant a more nuanced slide not a bunch of cartoons with some numbers.
Click to expand...
Right - but do you think that some of the current way we visualize information is just gobbledygook? We have pushed this idea that p<0.05 is “the answer” and basically the only thing that matters. I think some improved data management may help science / “science”
 
jondunn said:
Click to expand...


"12 fewer hospital visits per patient - reducing Covid 19 related risk"

Being presented as one of the top 3 bullet points for reducing number of treatments for bladder cancer, a disease with historically horrible survival rates.

In May 2022.

Without any cited evidence to back up the claim that treating someone with 55/20 vs. 64/32 statistically presently reduces the risk they will contract covid in the rad onc clinic. There are plenty of good reasons to treat someone with 55/20 but to list this as one of the top 3 is asinine.

I agree that this is a funny thing to present to a group of oncologists. Funny as in that they just completely made it up.

Disclaimer: I nearly treat all my bladder patients with 55/20.
 
Moonbeams said:
"12 fewer hospital visits per patient - reducing Covid 19 related risk"

Being presented as one of the top 3 bullet points for reducing number of treatments for bladder cancer, a disease with historically horrible survival rates.

In May 2022.

Without any cited evidence to back up the claim that treating someone with 55/20 vs. 64/32 statistically presently reduces the risk they will contract covid in the rad onc clinic. There are plenty of good reasons to treat someone with 55/20 but to list this as one of the top 3 is asinine.

I agree that this is a funny thing to present to a group of oncologists. Funny as in that they just completely made it up.

Disclaimer: I nearly treat all my bladder patients with 55/20.
Click to expand...

Everything is evidence based. Until someone in power decides this is what should be done. Why they continue to harp on this is bizarre
 
metallica81788 said:
Anything that helps me better translate word/number vomit gobbledygook to clinical decisions is useful.

I hate the classic journal presentation of data. I'm not saying I want circa 2002 WordArt but change is okay.
Click to expand...

I agree with this completely. My beef with that slide was the idiotic covid comment.

Effective powerpoint presentations should be minimalist. There should be very few words, and the intent of the presentation should be as a visual aid to the verbal lecture. Too often what we see instead is lazy presentation making where the content/dialogue of the lecture is copy and pasted on the slides and data is presented in an incorrect format for its setting (ie, copy/pasting/shrinking Table 1 from a paper or something instead of tersely summarizing the important parts of it with a couple of bullets).
 
RadsWFA1900 said:
Deliberate oversimplification for a group of supposedly sophisticated clinicians that are versed in elementary statistics should warrant a more nuanced slide not a bunch of cartoons with some numbers.
Click to expand...


I mean do you think that is the ONLY slide on the talk?
 
Moonbeams said:
"12 fewer hospital visits per patient - reducing Covid 19 related risk"

Being presented as one of the top 3 bullet points for reducing number of treatments for bladder cancer, a disease with historically horrible survival rates.

In May 2022.

Without any cited evidence to back up the claim that treating someone with 55/20 vs. 64/32 statistically presently reduces the risk they will contract covid in the rad onc clinic. There are plenty of good reasons to treat someone with 55/20 but to list this as one of the top 3 is asinine
Click to expand...
Clearly the worst thing about the slide. It wouldn’t be surprising if reducing the number of times the patient needs to come to clinic could INCREASE COVID rates in patients.
 
it's a great palliative regimen, I have used it multiple times. Totally different than curative-intent bladder preservation though.

here is the randomized trial from 2000:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A randomized trial of hypofractionated schedules of palliative radiotherapy in the management of bladder carcinoma: results of medical research council trial BA09 - PubMed

This is the largest prospective trial to date in the palliative treatment of bladder cancer, and provides baseline data against which other results may be compared. The use of 21 Gy in 3 fractions appears as effective as 35 Gy in 10 fractions, although modest differences in survival, symptomatic...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
TheWallnerus said:
Clearly the worst thing about the slide. It wouldn’t be surprising if reducing the number of times the patient needs to come to clinic could INCREASE COVID rates in patients.
Click to expand...

You: Sir, congrats on being done with radiation, but I have some bad news. It's normal that radiation will make you feel tired and achy. But your temperature yesterday was 100. Remember when we jammed that thing up your nose? Well, I hate to tell you this but you have Covid.

Patient: Oh my God, How did this happen?

You: Today is your 32nd of 32 treatments. I could have given you 20 treatments and prevented this. You probably got Covid here in this uncrowded clinic during your 15 minute encounters over the past week, where everyone has immunity to Covid, including you actually it appears, and still covers their face. This is much more likely than you getting this from your children at home, singing at the choir at church, or stuffing your face at the Golden Corral. I'm very sorry, but this information only recently came out from Europe in cartoon form.

Patient: Oh my God. Am I going to Die?

You: <Reviews chart>... It's not looking good...
 
TheWallnerus said:
Peyronie’s?

And that’s morbus ledderhose buddy
Click to expand...
Wrong part of the EM spectrum brah.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in Peyronie's disease: results of a placebo-controlled, prospective, randomized, single-blind study - PubMed

Despite some potential benefit of ESWT in regard to pain reduction, it should be emphasized that pain usually resolves spontaneously with time. Given this and the fact that deviation may worsen with ESWT, this treatment cannot be recommended.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
DoctwoB said:
Wrong part of the EM spectrum brah.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in Peyronie's disease: results of a placebo-controlled, prospective, randomized, single-blind study - PubMed

Despite some potential benefit of ESWT in regard to pain reduction, it should be emphasized that pain usually resolves spontaneously with time. Given this and the fact that deviation may worsen with ESWT, this treatment cannot be recommended.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
Ah allow me to demonstrate…

Superficial radiation therapy in peyronie’s disease: An effective and well-tolerated therapy - PMC

This study aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction of superficial radiation therapy in the treatment of Peyronie's disease (PD) in a retrospective analysis. We performed a retrospective analysis of 83 patients who underwent ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Have done a few cases. It seems to work well!
 
TheWallnerus said:
This was the Tinea Capitis huge scandal in Israel

EDIT: also I believe there is randomized data that irradiated golf balls can be driven further
Click to expand...
1652117093457.png
 
ESTRO seems to have a lot of interesting stuff being presented. The Europeans don't mess around

 
it depends where you are. in my community shop, I can't get the general ENTs to do much when I do want them to. they aren't expert laryngologists doing TLMs. maybe if you have a laryngologist in your community, they may be already getting microsurgical approaches. if they arent around, then rad onc is it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

uchihastan
Rad Onc vs. Heme/Onc
Replies
16
Views
2K
medgator
M
B
Rad Onc Procedures and RVUs
Replies
35
Views
5K
CurbYourExpectations
CurbYourExpectations
D
Saving Rad Onc
2
Replies
60
Views
7K
RickyScott
R
TheWallnerus
Rad Onc is in a dark place
Replies
13
Views
3K
RickyScott
R
M
Rad Onc Oral Boards: To quote or not quote studies?
Replies
5
Views
742
RSAOaky
R
Top