Search

This paper describes the ongoing structure of radiation oncology in Japan in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load and geographic distribution to identify and overcome any existing limitations. From March 2013 to August 2016, the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology conducted a questionnaire based on the Japanese national structure survey of radiation oncology in 2012. Data were analyzed based on the institutional stratification by the annual number of new patients treated with radiotherapy per institution. The estimated annual numbers of new and total (new plus repeat) patients treated with radiation were 213 000 and 251 000, respectively. Additionally, the estimated cancer incidence was 865 238 cases with ~24.6% of all newly diagnosed patients being treated with radiation. The types and numbers of treatment devices actually used included linear accelerator (LINAC; n  = 864), telecobalt (n  = 0), Gamma Knife (n  = 44), 60Co remote afterloading system (RALS; n  = 23) and 192Ir RALS (n  = 130). The LINAC system used dual-energy functions in 651 units, 3D conformal radiotherapy functions in 759 and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) functions in 466. There were 792 Japan Radiological Society/Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology-certified radiation oncologists, 1061.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) radiation oncologists, 2124.2 FTE radiotherapy technologists, 181.3 FTE medical physicists, 170.9 FTE radiotherapy quality managers and 841.5 FTE nurses. The frequency of IMRT use significantly increased during this time. In conclusion, the Japanese structure of radiation oncology has clearly improved in terms of equipment and utility although there was a shortage of personnel in 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated the evolving structure of radiation oncology in Japan in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load and geographic distribution to identify and overcome any existing limitations. From March 2012 to August 2015, the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology conducted a questionnaire based on the Japanese national structure survey of radiation oncology in 2011. Data were analyzed based on the institutional stratification by the annual number of new patients treated with radiotherapy per institution. The estimated annual numbers of new and total (new plus repeat) patients treated with radiation were 211 000 and 250 000, respectively. Additionally, the estimated cancer incidence was 851 537 cases with approximately 24.8% of all newly diagnosed patients being treated with radiation. The types and numbers of treatment devices actually used included linear accelerator (LINAC; n  = 836), telecobalt (n  = 3), Gamma Knife (n  = 46), 60Co remote afterloading system (RALS; n  = 24), and 192Ir RALS (n  = 125). The LINAC system used dual-energy functions in 619 units, 3D conformal radiotherapy functions in 719 and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) functions in 412. There were 756 JRS or JASTRO-certified radiation oncologists, 1018.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) radiation oncologists, 2026.7 FTE radiotherapy technologists, 149.1 FTE medical physicists, 141.5 FTE radiotherapy quality managers and 716.3 FTE nurses. The frequency of IMRT use significantly increased during this time. To conclude, although there was a shortage of personnel in 2011, the Japanese structure of radiation oncology has clearly improved in terms of equipment and utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]