Search

Despite its clinical use and investigation in other countries, low dose radiation therapy (LDRT) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) is minimally used in the United States (US). Numerous recent studies published outside the US have shown moderate to long-term pain relief and improvement of mobility after treatment with LDRT for joints affected by OA. Here, we review the most recent literature published on the use of LDRT in OA. We provide a brief outline on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, current treatments, and health care burden of OA within the US. We provide a brief history of the historic use of LDRT in the US as well as a history of LDRT within the modern era of radiation oncology, discuss criticisms of LDRT including recently published randomized trials questioning its benefit as well as the risk of secondary malignancy from LDRT, and provide an outline of treatment planning considerations and recommendations regarding dose and fractionation, energy, beam arrangements, and immobilization techniques. LDRT has been shown to be a cost-effective, noninvasive treatment with minimal side effects. Further investigation into the potential role in the treatment of OA with modern LDRT is recommended.

Our purpose was to examine current practice patterns in non-English-speaking patients with breast cancer undergoing deep inspiratory breath hold (DIBH).An anonymous, voluntary REDCap survey was distributed to 60 residency program coordinators of US radiation oncology departments to survey their faculty and recent graduates. Eligibility was limited to board-certified radiation oncologists who had treated breast cancer within the prior 6 months.There were 69 respondents, 53 of whom were eligible. Forty-two percent (n = 22) of eligible respondents were from the main site at an academic center, with 28% (n = 15) representing a satellite site and 30% (n = 16) from private practice. Fifty-three percent reported at least 10% of their patients were non-English speaking. Ninety percent offered DIBH at their institution; of those, 74% used DIBH for at least one-fourth of their patients with breast cancer. Ninety-eight percent of those who use DIBH performed coaching at simulation, with 32% answering they would be "less likely" to use DIBH for non-English speakers. When used, 94% take into consideration potential language barriers for proper execution of DIBH. However, 51% had an interpreter present 76% to 100% of the time at computed tomography simulation, which decreased to 31% at first fraction and 11% at subsequent treatments. For non-English-speaking patients undergoing DIBH coaching without a certified interpreter, 55% of respondents indicated that they provided verbal coaching in English, 32% indicated "not applicable" because they always use a certified interpreter, 11% used visual aids, and 32% indicated "other." Of those who answered "other," the most commonly cited response was using therapists or staff who spoke the patient's native language.Disparities in the application of DIBH exist despite its established utility in reducing cardiac dose. This study provides evidence that language barriers may affect physician treatment practices from initial consideration of DIBH to subsequent delivery. These data suggest that breast cancer treatment considerations and subsequent execution are negatively affected in non-English-speaking patients.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of radiation oncology (RO) fellowship growth from 2010 to 2020.A collated database of RO fellowship programs and matriculants was created using (1) RO residency program (n = 92) and graduate (n = 2082) web searches, (2) prospective American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Career Center postings database, (3) Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Fellowship Directory, (4) RO fellowship survey data, (5) ASTRO Membership Directory, and (6) direct e-mail contact with fellowship program directors. Linear regression was used to assess the statistical significance of RO fellowship program, position, and matriculant growth over time.From 2010 to 2020, the number of RO fellowship programs and annual positions significantly increased from 20 to 37 (1.60 increase per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.89; P.001) and 20 to 39 (1.81 increase per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.10; P.001), respectively. The most commonly offered fellowship disciplines were proton therapy (n = 10), brachytherapy (n = 7), stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (n = 6), general RO (n = 5), and customizable to trainees' interests (n = 3). Only 10 (27%) fellowships had a formal curriculum. All fellowships were unaccredited. Four (10.8%) programs were offered at institutions without an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO residency training program, all established within the past 2 years. In addition, 54.8% (171 of 312) of available fellowship positions were filled between 2010 to 2020. Of these, 94 (55.0%) were graduates of US RO residency programs. The mean number of total fellows and US-residency trained fellows per year was 15 (range, 5-23) and 8 (range, 2-20), respectively. There was no significant increase in the number of annual matriculated fellows over time (P = .077). Among US-residency trained fellows, 27 (28.7%), 37 (39.4%), and 29 (30.9%) were from small (≤6), medium (7-12), and large (12) residency programs, respectively. Twenty-eight (29.8%), 13 (13.8%), 25 (26.6%), and 27 (28.7%) trained in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, respectively.There has been significant growth in unaccredited RO fellowship programs and annual positions during the past decade, although the number of matriculants has remained stable. We report for the first time the recent establishment of fellowships at institutions without an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO residency program. The impact of fellowship programs on the training of RO residents should be studied.