Search

Purpose: To evaluate the ongoing structure of radiation oncology in Japan in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load, and geographic distribution to identify and improve any deficiencies. Methods and Materials: A questionnaire-based national structure survey was conducted from March to December 2008 by the Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (JASTRO). These data were analyzed in terms of the institutional stratification of the Patterns of Care Study. Results: The total numbers of new cancer patients and total cancer patients (new and repeat) treated with radiation in 2007 were estimated at 181,000 and 218,000, respectively. There were 807 linear accelerator, 15 telecobalt, 46 Gamma Knife, 45 60Co remote-controlled after-loading, and 123 192Ir remote-controlled after-loading systems in actual use. The linear accelerator systems used dual-energy function in 539 units (66.8%), three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in 555 (68.8%), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in 235 (29.1%). There were 477 JASTRO-certified radiation oncologists, 826.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) radiation oncologists, 68.4 FTE medical physicists, and 1,634 FTE radiation therapists. The number of interstitial radiotherapy (RT) administrations for prostate, stereotactic body radiotherapy, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy increased significantly. Patterns of Care Study stratification can clearly identify the maturity of structures based on their academic nature and caseload. Geographically, the more JASTRO-certified physicians there were in a given area, the more RT tended to be used for cancer patients. Conclusions: The Japanese structure has clearly improved during the past 17 years in terms of equipment and its use, although a shortage of personnel and variations in maturity disclosed by Patterns of Care Study stratification were still problematic in 2007. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: PurposeWe examined whether the data registered in the Japanese Patterns of Care Study (PCS) for patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represent the actual situation of radiotherapy in Japan. The Osaka Cancer Registry (OCR) data, forming the largest database of a regional cancer registry in Japan, were adopted for use as a benchmark against the national condition.: Patients and methodsWe examined 906 patients of the PCS treated between 1995 and 1997 and 845 patients of the OCR registered between 1988 and 1992. The investigation was made by descriptive statistical methods to measure age, stage, combined treatments, type of treated hospitals, and prognosis. Furthermore, the national averages (NAs) of the PCS process (PCS NA) were also calculated to compensate for the imbalance in the PCS data sampling.: ResultsThe mean age was 67.3 ± 10.1 in PCS and 64.4 ± 11.0 in OCR (p < 0.001), 67.2 in PCS NA. The male ratio was 84.2% in PCS and 84.0% in OCR (p = 0.411), 84.1% in PCS NA. The ratio of the patients at the localized stage was 24.2% in PCS and 15.6% in OCR (p = 0.001), 21.1% in PCS NA. The ratio of surgery combined was 24.2% in PCS and 28.9% in OCR (p = 0.026), 25.3% in PCS NA. The ratio of chemotherapy combined was 50.1% in PCS and 67.5% in OCR (p = 0.001), 47.4% in PCS NA. Because the definitions of institution classification and period of prognostic inquiry were different between the two databases, the 3-year survival rates were calculated for reference. In the nonsurgery group, it was 20.3% in PCS and 11.3% in OCR (p = 0.001), and in the surgery group it was 52.5% in PCS and 42.2% in OCR (p = 0.057).: ConclusionsAges in the two databases were inconsistent. Sex distributions were consistent. Surgery and chemotherapy were more frequently performed for the OCR patients, and more patients at more advanced stages were also observed in OCR. The PCS NAs of sex, stage, and ratio of surgery combined were at the midpoints between those of PCS and OCR. The survival rate of NSCLC patients in the OCR was significantly inferior to that in the PCS. The follow-up rate of the PCS was lower than that of the OCR. The general features of PCS data showed similarity to OCR data, and the results of the PCS NAs suggested the effectiveness of this method to adjust the sampling imbalance in PCS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To evaluate the actual work environment of radiation oncologists (ROs) in Japan in terms of working pattern, patient load, and quality of cancer care based on the relative time spent on patient care. Methods and Materials: In 2008, the Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology produced a questionnaire for a national structure survey of radiation oncology in 2007. Data for full-time ROs were crosschecked with data for part-time ROs by using their identification data. Data of 954 ROs were analyzed. The relative practice index for patients was calculated as the relative value of care time per patient on the basis of Japanese Blue Book guidelines (200 patients per RO). Results: The working patterns of RO varied widely among facility categories. ROs working mainly at university hospitals treated 189.2 patients per year on average, with those working in university hospitals and their affiliated facilities treating 249.1 and those working in university hospitals only treating 144.0 patients per year on average. The corresponding data were 256.6 for cancer centers and 176.6 for other facilities. Geographically, the mean annual number of patients per RO per quarter was significantly associated with population size, varying from 143.1 to 203.4 (p < 0.0001). There were also significant differences in the average practice index for patients by ROs working mainly in university hospitals between those in main and affiliated facilities (1.07 vs 0.71: p < 0.0001). Conclusions: ROs working in university hospitals and their affiliated facilities treated more patients than the other ROs. In terms of patient care time only, the quality of cancer care in affiliated facilities might be worse than that in university hospitals. Under the current national medical system, working patterns of ROs of academic facilities in Japan appear to be problematic for fostering true specialization of radiation oncologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]