{"title":"全国直肠癌放射治疗实践模式横断面调查:印度掠影","authors":"Rahul Krishnatry, Ashwathy Mathew, Sayan Das, Shagun Misra, Divya Khosla, Jeba Karunya Ramireddy, Shirley Lewis","doi":"10.1200/GO-24-00410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The information on the practice of radiotherapy, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) use for rectal cancer in India, is lacking. This national survey was planned to understand the current status of knowledge, attitudes, and practice among radiation oncologists, specifically concerning the practice of IMRT for rectal cancers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A national survey was sent to radiation oncologists through e-mail or a WhatsApp message, where feasible, with a request letter containing the link to the survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire was adapted from the UK IMRT survey with permission from the authors. It explored rectal cancer management, IMRT use, reasons for nonadoption, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), dose fractionation schedules and radiotherapy processes like radiotherapy simulation, target volume/organ at risk definition, and treatment planning, evaluation, and verification. Descriptive statistics is used to present the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 300 radiation oncologists were approached, and 182 (60.6%) of the 153 institutes responded. Around 88% (160 of 182) indicated using IMRT or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to treat rectal cancer, of whom 32% used exclusively IMRT/VMAT in all their patients. The reasons for not adopting IMRT were affordability/lack of insurance, resource constraints, and lack of guidelines. Long-course chemoradiation (capecitabine-based) followed by surgery was the most common neoadjuvant approach, with short course and TNT in less than a third of patients. Daily verification feasibility was reported by 60%. Seventy-three percent emphasized the need for a national IMRT guidance document.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This national survey from India indicates a scope of routine implementation of IMRT in rectal cancer, highlighting the urgent need for a national IMRT guidance document, which could significantly enhance the quality of care for patients with rectal cancer in India.</p>","PeriodicalId":14806,"journal":{"name":"JCO Global Oncology","volume":"10 ","pages":"e2400410"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-Sectional National Survey of Practice Patterns in Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: A Snapshot of India.\",\"authors\":\"Rahul Krishnatry, Ashwathy Mathew, Sayan Das, Shagun Misra, Divya Khosla, Jeba Karunya Ramireddy, Shirley Lewis\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/GO-24-00410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The information on the practice of radiotherapy, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) use for rectal cancer in India, is lacking. This national survey was planned to understand the current status of knowledge, attitudes, and practice among radiation oncologists, specifically concerning the practice of IMRT for rectal cancers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A national survey was sent to radiation oncologists through e-mail or a WhatsApp message, where feasible, with a request letter containing the link to the survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire was adapted from the UK IMRT survey with permission from the authors. It explored rectal cancer management, IMRT use, reasons for nonadoption, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), dose fractionation schedules and radiotherapy processes like radiotherapy simulation, target volume/organ at risk definition, and treatment planning, evaluation, and verification. Descriptive statistics is used to present the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 300 radiation oncologists were approached, and 182 (60.6%) of the 153 institutes responded. Around 88% (160 of 182) indicated using IMRT or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to treat rectal cancer, of whom 32% used exclusively IMRT/VMAT in all their patients. The reasons for not adopting IMRT were affordability/lack of insurance, resource constraints, and lack of guidelines. Long-course chemoradiation (capecitabine-based) followed by surgery was the most common neoadjuvant approach, with short course and TNT in less than a third of patients. Daily verification feasibility was reported by 60%. Seventy-three percent emphasized the need for a national IMRT guidance document.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This national survey from India indicates a scope of routine implementation of IMRT in rectal cancer, highlighting the urgent need for a national IMRT guidance document, which could significantly enhance the quality of care for patients with rectal cancer in India.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO Global Oncology\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"e2400410\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO Global Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/GO-24-00410\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO Global Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/GO-24-00410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cross-Sectional National Survey of Practice Patterns in Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: A Snapshot of India.
Purpose: The information on the practice of radiotherapy, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) use for rectal cancer in India, is lacking. This national survey was planned to understand the current status of knowledge, attitudes, and practice among radiation oncologists, specifically concerning the practice of IMRT for rectal cancers.
Materials and methods: A national survey was sent to radiation oncologists through e-mail or a WhatsApp message, where feasible, with a request letter containing the link to the survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire was adapted from the UK IMRT survey with permission from the authors. It explored rectal cancer management, IMRT use, reasons for nonadoption, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), dose fractionation schedules and radiotherapy processes like radiotherapy simulation, target volume/organ at risk definition, and treatment planning, evaluation, and verification. Descriptive statistics is used to present the results.
Results: Over 300 radiation oncologists were approached, and 182 (60.6%) of the 153 institutes responded. Around 88% (160 of 182) indicated using IMRT or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to treat rectal cancer, of whom 32% used exclusively IMRT/VMAT in all their patients. The reasons for not adopting IMRT were affordability/lack of insurance, resource constraints, and lack of guidelines. Long-course chemoradiation (capecitabine-based) followed by surgery was the most common neoadjuvant approach, with short course and TNT in less than a third of patients. Daily verification feasibility was reported by 60%. Seventy-three percent emphasized the need for a national IMRT guidance document.
Conclusion: This national survey from India indicates a scope of routine implementation of IMRT in rectal cancer, highlighting the urgent need for a national IMRT guidance document, which could significantly enhance the quality of care for patients with rectal cancer in India.