Search

The structure of radiation oncology in designated cancer care hospitals in Japan was investigated in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load, and geographic distribution, and compared with the structure in other radiotherapy facilities. The Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (JASTRO) conducted a questionnaire survey about the national structure of radiation oncology in 2005. In the current study, the structures of 326 designated cancer care hospitals and the other 386 radiotherapy facilities in Japan were compared. Designated cancer care hospitals accounted for 45.3% of all radiotherapy facilities. The patterns of equipment and personnel in designated cancer care hospitals and the other radiotherapy facilities were as follows: linear accelerators/facility, 1.2 and 1.0; dual-energy function, 73.1% and 56.3%; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy function, 67.5% and 52.7%; intensity-modulated radiotherapy function, 30.0% and 13.9%; annual number of patients/linear accelerator, 289.7 and 175.1; 192Ir remote-controlled afterloading systems, 27.6% and 8.6%; and average number of full-time equivalent radiation oncologists/facility, 1.4 and 0.9 ( P < 0.0001). There were significant differences in equipment and personnel between the two types of facilities. Annual patient loads/full-time equivalent radiation oncologist in the designated cancer care hospitals and the other radiotherapy facilities were 252 and 240. Geographically, the number of designated cancer care hospitals was associated with the population, and the number of JASTRO-certified physicians was associated with the number of patients undergoing radiotherapy. The Japanese structure of radiation oncology in designated cancer care hospitals was more mature than that in the other radiotherapy facilities in terms of equipment, although a shortage of personnel still exists. The serious understaffing problem in radiation oncology should be corrected in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the 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 between March 2006 and February 2007 by the Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. 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 radiotherapy in 2005 were estimated at approximately 162,000 and 198,000, respectively. In actual use were 765 linear accelerators, 11 telecobalt machines, 48 GammaKnife machines, 64 60Co remote-controlled after-loading systems, and 119 192Ir remote-controlled after-loading systems. The linear accelerator systems used dual-energy function in 498 systems (65%), three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in 462 (60%), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in 170 (22%). There were 426 Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology-certified radiation oncologists, 774 full-time equivalent radiation oncologists, 117 medical physicists, and 1,635 radiation therapists. Geographically, a significant variation was found in the use of radiotherapy, from 0.9 to 2.1 patients/1,000 population. The annual patient load/FTE radiation oncologist was 247, exceeding the Blue Book guidelines level. Patterns of Care Study stratification can clearly discriminate the maturity of structures according to their academic nature and caseload. Conclusions: The Japanese structure has clearly improved during the past 15 years in terms of equipment and its use, although the shortage of manpower and variations in maturity disclosed by this Patterns of Care Study stratification remain problematic. These constitute the targets for nationwide improvement in quality assurance and quality control. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]