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.
doesn’t spratt push protons ?
1745850210040.png

1745850250702.png

1745850406406.png

1745850487199.png

I would say, he likes protons.
But not for prostate.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I love to poke fun as much as the next guy, especially to deflate hypocrisy or pomposity. But my dad used to start meetings sometimes with “one of these days we all need to get together and be honest.” Whenever we use IMRT (a “device” I’d argue, as would CPT 77338) for prostate cancer, and I bet we all use IMRT 100 percent of the time, what is the level one evidence that it is superior to non IMRT methods.
Fair but look at the financial delta between IMRT and 3d. Protons vs IMRT far greater with no evidence to support superiority
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Dan is probably charging most insurances 5-10x cms rates and has satellites throughout the metro. He is playing the same game. Its ok to charge prices 10x that of a small community hospital for same services, but somehow problematic to hype a shiny new robot.
 
Last edited:
Dan is probably charging most insurances 5-10x cms rates and has satellites throughout the metro. He is playing the same game. Its ok to charge prices 10x that of a small community hospital for same services, but somehow problematic to hype a shiny new robot.

‘dan’ as if he has anything to do with that let’s be real
 

Med school boom? I'm not sure what that was, or when. It looks like we graduate <30,000 MDs and DOs yearly in the US. I'm all for emphasizing that medicine is not what you think or hope it might be but having 2+ times as many applicants as spots only seems like those dreams that were unrealistic in the first place might be over. Maybe my math is wrong/I'm missing something.
 
Med school boom? I'm not sure what that was, or when. It looks like we graduate <30,000 MDs and DOs yearly in the US. I'm all for emphasizing that medicine is not what you think or hope it might be but having 2+ times as many applicants as spots only seems like those dreams that were unrealistic in the first place might be over. Maybe my math is wrong/I'm missing something.
Half of applicants are getting in. I thought it used to be 1/4th?
 
According to a quick search there are about 30,000 UD MD/DO medical school positions offered per year and 43,000 residency positions in the match. Seems like we still need a lot more US Med school positions to open up.
 
According to a quick search there are about 30,000 UD MD/DO medical school positions offered per year and 43,000 residency positions in the match. Seems like we still need a lot more US Med school positions to open up.
Should be 42,900 residency positions if our residency programs could get it together!
 
Dan is probably charging most insurances 5-10x cms rates and has satellites throughout the metro. He is playing the same game. Its ok to charge prices 10x that of a small community hospital for same services, but somehow problematic to hype a shiny new robot.
‘dan’ as if he has anything to do with that let’s be real

Agree with drowsy. Seriously, this is a moving of the goal posts from some of you guys. Why you so obsessed w/ Dan Spratt?

Yes academics and hospital systems get to charge more. This was happening before Spratt became chair and is completely unrelated to him existing.

It started with 'doesn't Spratt push protons'?

The answer was 'no, he's actually pretty conservative in regards to benefits and criticizes protons especially for prostate more than the average Rad Onc who is in a position of power. He criticizes them DESPITE having access to a proton machine at his facility, which is a significant rarity (generally those who are pro protons for prostate work for a proton center, generally those who are against protons for prostate work at a center that does NOT have protons)'

Then, there was a search about a portion of a UH website that is about proton cancer mentions the world prostate, and thus immediately the worst is assumed. Here is the FULL EXCERPT, bold my emphasis:

"Protons are most successful in treating solid tumors with well-defined borders that have not spread to other areas of the body. As such, proton therapy is most often used for tumors of the brain, head, neck, lungs and spine, although it can also treat eye melanoma, pituitary gland tumors, prostate cancer and a number of other contained cancers. Proton therapy can be combined with other forms of radiation and chemotherapy and can even be used as a follow-up treatment to surgery to help eradicate cancer from the surrounding tissues."

So yes, proton therapy CAN be used to treat prostate cancer. Sure, it doesn't say whether it should or it shouldn't, but proton therapy can clearly be used to treat prostate cancer (even though IMO it shouldn't because there's no benefit to an individual patient and harm on a global scale).

I'm not saying Dan Spratt is amazing either, but, when it comes to prostate cancer, he is, IMO, at least consistent. He argues against non evidence based things and claims, regardless of who is making money off of it.
 
Agree with drowsy. Seriously, this is a moving of the goal posts from some of you guys. Why you so obsessed w/ Dan Spratt?

Yes academics and hospital systems get to charge more. This was happening before Spratt became chair and is completely unrelated to him existing.

It started with 'doesn't Spratt push protons'?

The answer was 'no, he's actually pretty conservative in regards to benefits and criticizes protons especially for prostate more than the average Rad Onc who is in a position of power. He criticizes them DESPITE having access to a proton machine at his facility, which is a significant rarity (generally those who are pro protons for prostate work for a proton center, generally those who are against protons for prostate work at a center that does NOT have protons)'

Then, there was a search about a portion of a UH website that is about proton cancer mentions the world prostate, and thus immediately the worst is assumed. Here is the FULL EXCERPT, bold my emphasis:

"Protons are most successful in treating solid tumors with well-defined borders that have not spread to other areas of the body. As such, proton therapy is most often used for tumors of the brain, head, neck, lungs and spine, although it can also treat eye melanoma, pituitary gland tumors, prostate cancer and a number of other contained cancers. Proton therapy can be combined with other forms of radiation and chemotherapy and can even be used as a follow-up treatment to surgery to help eradicate cancer from the surrounding tissues."

So yes, proton therapy CAN be used to treat prostate cancer. Sure, it doesn't say whether it should or it shouldn't, but proton therapy can clearly be used to treat prostate cancer (even though IMO it shouldn't because there's no benefit to an individual patient and harm on a global scale).

I'm not saying Dan Spratt is amazing either, but, when it comes to prostate cancer, he is, IMO, at least consistent. He argues against non evidence based things and claims, regardless of who is making money off of it.
Agree. Typical behavior from the condiments lobby
 
Top