IMRT: Another Point of View

S. Jack Wei, MD
Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania
Ultima Vez Modificado: 22 de octubre del 2003

Moderator: Theodore L. Phillips, MD., University of California, San Francisco

Edward C. Halperin, MD, Duke University

  • There is a difference between research and therapy.
  • As a field, we have used research and randomized trials selectively if they show a benefit for radiation, but have dismissed its necessity when we do not have the data.
  • There have been a number of cases where early results from non-randomized data compared to historic controls appeared to show a benefit, but did not show a benefit after randomized testing. Examples include bone marrow transplant for breast cancer, beta-carotene for decreasing cancer incidence, hyperfractionated radiation for pediatric brain stem tumors, etc.
  • Non-randomized data compared to historic controls is not equal to randomized data.
  • The increased treatment time and monitor units due to IMRT result in higher leakage and scatter as is evidenced by the increased rate of second neoplasms with IMRT (1% vs. 1.75% at 10 years).
  • We must not confuse differential dose distributions with differential outcomes.
  • IMRT should be viewed as research, not therapy.

Blogs

In Celebration of Eric Ott
by Bob Riter
August 17, 2015

Related News

Increased Use of IMRT for Self-Referring Urologists

Oct 24, 2013

Increases among self-referring versus non-self-referring urologists in private practice


ASTRO: Hypofractionated IMRT Practical Approach in Prostate CA

Sep 30, 2011

Hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation as effective as conventional IMRT at five years


Limited field of view at scanning misses most cancers detected with full view; majority found resectable

Apr 26, 2010

Limited field of view at scanning misses most cancers detected with full view; majority found resectable