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.
Ray D. Ayshun said:
My understanding of rt in the oligometastatic setting is to theoretically kill all of the remaining cancer. The proposition here is not that it makes new Mets. It's that it releases a growth ligand that could make subclinical disease become clinical. This would happen anyway if there is subclinical disease, rt or no. Hence, what does this have to do with anything? Sbrt for oligomets doesn't work if there's subclinical disease elsewhere, not because it induces new Mets out of the ether.
Click to expand...
As a diagnostic wielder of radiation, this is what I read as well.

Maybe it’s not a ligand at all. Maybe radiation is immune suppressive and the down regulation of the immune system allows suppressed Mets to thrive?

Hence let’s give immune therapy and RT at the same time!
Members don't see this ad.
 
With the prefaces of me not being an expert or very smart, my initial thought was that SBRT decreases "metastasis", but increases tumor growth in poly metastatic cancer patients. So I thought about it differently, but need to read it cuz I could be completely off, busy clinic days. What is weird is that we don't see any significant increase in mets in SBRT cases in the primary tumor (of micrometastatic disease, so logically, this is not clinically relevant and won't pan out). But I am hopeful whatever the nonsensical ranting that is happening on twitter does pan out and somehow this shows ablating cancers in polymetastatic diseases with a molecular inhibitor is somehow beneficial in non treated sites. The paper being negative regarding radonc is, I guess I would say uncalled for (but how many times do I say stuff I shouldn't? Daily? You guys have witnessed it, I hide behind an anonymous account and admit i'm an idiot 99% of the time), but if the actual stuff becomes relevant and we start seeing decreases in metastatic growth, that is a boon for RadOnc. Ralph isn't dumb, he's very intelligent imo (who cares about my opinion?), he knows that being flamboyant gets people talking about his pubs. Tbh idk, smart people... what should I think
 
Members don't see this ad :)
CurbYourExpectations said:
With the prefaces of me not being an expert or very smart, my initial thought was that SBRT decreases "metastasis", but increases tumor growth in poly metastatic cancer patients. So I thought about it differently, but need to read it cuz I could be completely off, busy clinic days. What is weird is that we don't see any significant increase in mets in SBRT cases in the primary tumor (of micrometastatic disease, so logically, this is not clinically relevant and won't pan out). But I am hopeful whatever the nonsensical ranting that is happening on twitter does pan out and somehow this shows ablating cancers in polymetastatic diseases with a molecular inhibitor is somehow beneficial in non treated sites. The paper being negative regarding radonc is, I guess I would say uncalled for (but how many times do I say stuff I shouldn't? Daily? You guys have witnessed it, I hide behind an anonymous account and admit i'm an idiot 99% of the time), but if the actual stuff becomes relevant and we start seeing decreases in metastatic growth, that is a boon for RadOnc. Ralph isn't dumb, he's very intelligent imo (who cares about my opinion?), he knows that being flamboyant gets people talking about his pubs. Tbh idk, smart people... what should I think
Click to expand...
I'm not sbrting 1 of 10 visible Mets. It's 1 of 1. This paper means zero to me as far as I can tell. it's still interesting, but clinically irrelevant.
 
drowsy12 said:
it’s not anti radiation at all
Click to expand...
Sure, you're right, technically. But it's very easy to take this and run with it. That rectal trial last year wasn't anti radiation, but the newspaper articles made it such. I would argue that the fact this is in Nature Nature is a little anti radiation though. It seems like a slow month in natural science if this is sneaking in.
 


Glad he’s walking back his knee jerk hyperbole from before.

Also this surgeon is right. It also makes rad oncs look silly.

 
Last edited:
drowsy12 said:


Glad he’s walking back his knee jerk hyperbole from before.

Also this surgeon is right. It also makes rad oncs look silly.

Click to expand...

"Radiation" is such a vague term for a Nature paper title. Is it dsbs, is it free radical damage to proteins, immune inhibition? It's some sort of localized thing that happens that manifests systemically. If they sbrt'd a normal tissue, would the same thing happen? I presume this was a control (can't read the paper).

Re cetuximab, a quote from RW suggests it's efficacy in this context.

“Interestingly, the combination of radiation and amphiregulin blockade decreased both tumor size and the number of metastatic sites,” Weichselbaum said.

In any case, this is interesting, irrelevant, and treatable. But ultimately NBD so long as it's not editorialized to inanity. Twitter makes anyone who participates look silly.
 
drowsy12 said:
Click to expand...


Chirag Shah was right (how many times can we say this)....

We have a distribution problem, not a lack of residents. Churning out more residents just puts more rad oncs in the cities. "Solving" the rural rad onc issue is not accomplished by more residents.

First step to regaining trust in ASTRO/Red Journal....I want to see a "where are we now?" update to that red journal back-and-forth.
 
BobbyHeenan said:
Chirag Shah was right (how many times can we say this)....

We have a distribution problem, not a lack of residents. Churning out more residents just puts more rad oncs in the cities. "Solving" the rural rad onc issue is not accomplished by more residents.

First step to regaining trust in ASTRO/Red Journal....I want to see a "where are we now?" update to that red journal back-and-forth.
Click to expand...
There’s a relatively easy fix for it. Increase the pay, give tax break and loan forgiveness.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
NotMattSpraker said:
Eliminate? Or acquire and make it a network satellite covered part time by a physician?

Anecdote, but I'm seeing more of the latter.
Click to expand...
sorry, yeah, that's true. Some of them are finding out those places are tough to staff at academic sat pay.

Edit: I'm one of those red dots fwiw
 
Last edited:
Another red dot checking in. Perhaps one of the loneliest ones on the map. I lasted < 2 years. The place is now staffing with non-BC locums and they will never be able to hire a new grad again.

All of those red dots should be making minimum 1M with 4 day week and 8 weeks PTO. And they better be nice to you. Really nice.
Unfortunately many want to bait-and-switch a new grad and chain them to the machine in BFE at MGMA median. When you complain that they lied, they show you the door, smear your name to future employers, and hire eager-to-please locums. Seen it happen to probably half a dozen peers at this point.

There can be some great rural solo employed gigs. In fact, I think this is the best job in the field. The happiest rad oncs I know are those in good solo gigs where they have total freedom. But you have to be very, very careful in vetting these. A new grad just doesn't have the experience to do this. Which is why the stats are showing over half leave in a few years.
 
These Astro and IJROBP arguments are stupid. As said above, you have to make the job attractive enough for someone to take when there is a serious location handicap. But the underlying thinking is someone should magically want to fill these spots basically on the same terms as any other place with maybe a modest bump in pay.
 
drowsy12 said:
Click to expand...

1747948326555.png
 
StIGMA said:
More practicing doctors means more options for care, no? even though it may be at fewer physical locations
Click to expand...
The doctors aren't responsible for the price of radiation therapy. The locations are. Global charge of radiation charged by the center, not the doctor at hospital based places

Less freestanding, more hospital and academic consolidation means fewer choices and higher prices

More docs simply serves to drive down salaries and make the job market less competitive for graduating residents.

Think back to the bloodbath thread and why Dennis Hallahan at Wash U told everyone in the IJROBP why he was expanding positions at his residency program
 
Last edited:
evilbooyaa said:
Is it misinfo though? Patients have less options as to where to get radiation now than they did previously, due to consolidation. Is anyone arguing aginst that?
Click to expand...

I jumped the gun on the joke and also you are right it doesnt really make sense for this paper. I misunderstood the argument of the author.

StIGMA said:
More practicing doctors means more options for care, no? even though it may be at fewer physical locations
Click to expand...

Todd Scarbrough had some nice tweets about this back in 2022. It appears there are more physical locations, not less.

1748025698577.png
 
NotMattSpraker said:
I jumped the gun on the joke and also you are right it doesnt really make sense for this paper. I misunderstood the argument of the author.



Todd Scarbrough had some nice tweets about this back in 2022. It appears there are more physical locations, not less.

View attachment 404038
Click to expand...
Indeed data seems to support that there are more RT facilities now than in the past

We also gotta keep in mind that ~1% or less of the US population lives >50 miles from an RT center.

I just don't think the data shows "fewer options" for care. I mean, an RT center is an RT center is an RT center (for the most part if we can ignore protons, BgRT, MRgRT, etc.). There are more products, and more sales people, but probably less brands (if that makes sense).
 
TheWallnerus said:
Indeed data seems to support that there are more RT facilities now than in the past

We also gotta keep in mind that ~1% or less of the US population lives >50 miles from an RT center.

I just don't think the data shows "fewer options" for care. I mean, an RT center is an RT center is an RT center (for the most part if we can ignore protons, BgRT, MRgRT, etc.). There are more products, and more sales people, but probably less brands (if that makes sense).
Click to expand...

I think less 'brands' means fewer 'options' - most multi-site practices, whether they be academic or not are not going to really encourage second opinions within the system in terms of alternative approaches to X/Y/Z... More brick and mortar doesn't really matter.
 
evilbooyaa said:
I think less 'brands' means fewer 'options' - most multi-site practices, whether they be academic or not are not going to really encourage second opinions within the system in terms of alternative approaches to X/Y/Z... More brick and mortar doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...
drowsy12 said:
yeah. is it really 'more options' if there are more Upenn network sites that are all spokes of the same wheel and charge the same prices in your sleepy suburban PA locale?

I agree Upenn would say there are more options, but I'm not sure I would agree.
Click to expand...

Which gives more options: you can only buy a Ford, or you can buy either Tesla or a Rivian.

It's very debatable.

And let's be real. Rad onc patients are not very shop-around-y/looking for second opinion type patients.

"Options"... again, it's very subjective. A patient presents with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer. The NCCN lists 16 EBRT fraction options, 6 boost options (seeds, SBRT), SpaceOAR and proton options, also need to consider hormones (yes/no, and oral or standard?). That’s about 16x2x6x2x2x4=3072 different treatment iterations for this one presentation. Now add in "you can come here, or you can go to the academic center across town, or the major academic center in the next state over"... ~10,000 options for one disease(?!). In a few years people will just ask the AI, maybe.
 
TheWallnerus said:
Which gives more options: you can only buy a Ford, or you can buy either Tesla or a Rivian.

It's very debatable.

And let's be real. Rad onc patients are not very shop-around-y/looking for second opinion type patients.

"Options"... again, it's very subjective. A patient presents with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer. The NCCN lists 16 EBRT fraction options, 6 boost options (seeds, SBRT), SpaceOAR and proton options, also need to consider hormones (yes/no, and oral or standard?). That’s about 16x2x6x2x2x4=3072 different treatment iterations for this one presentation. Now add in "you can come here, or you can go to the academic center across town, or the major academic center in the next state over"... ~10,000 options for one disease(?!). In a few years people will just ask the AI, maybe.
Click to expand...

You haven't had patients come in with pages of ChatGPT printouts yet telling them exactly what we "should" be doing? It's a ton of fun.
 
TheWallnerus said:
Which gives more options: you can only buy a Ford, or you can buy either Tesla or a Rivian.

It's very debatable.

And let's be real. Rad onc patients are not very shop-around-y/looking for second opinion type patients.

"Options"... again, it's very subjective. A patient presents with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer. The NCCN lists 16 EBRT fraction options, 6 boost options (seeds, SBRT), SpaceOAR and proton options, also need to consider hormones (yes/no, and oral or standard?). That’s about 16x2x6x2x2x4=3072 different treatment iterations for this one presentation. Now add in "you can come here, or you can go to the academic center across town, or the major academic center in the next state over"... ~10,000 options for one disease(?!). In a few years people will just ask the AI, maybe.
Click to expand...
That may be your personal experience but it is not at all uncommon for me to see a second opinion that has already been to or plans to go to MDA, MSKCC, or some other monolith, looking for someone willing to give them what they want. I mean you hear it from anyone who has access to protons - the sheer number of men who come looking for prostate cancer RT w/ protons...

I also see a number of second opinions who get told something by their local rad onc and they are looking if what they were told locally is reasonable or not. Usually it is, sometimes it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

uchihastan
Rad Onc vs. Heme/Onc
Replies
18
Views
2K
medgator
M
B
Rad Onc Procedures and RVUs
Replies
35
Views
4K
CurbYourExpectations
CurbYourExpectations
D
Saving Rad Onc
2
Replies
60
Views
6K
RickyScott
R
TheWallnerus
Rad Onc is in a dark place
Replies
13
Views
2K
RickyScott
R
D
Future of rad onc job market
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
BobbyHeenan
B
Top