PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Expert consensus on re-irradiation for recurrent glioma.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Krauze, A.* ; Attia, A.* ; Braunstein, S.* ; Chan, M.* ; Combs, S.E. ; Fietkau, R.* ; Fiveash, J.* ; Flickinger, J.* ; Grosu, A.-L.* ; Howard, S.* ; Nieder, C.* ; Niyazi, M.* ; Rowe, L.* ; Smart, D.D.* ; Tsien, C.* ; Camphausen, K.*

Expert consensus on re-irradiation for recurrent glioma.

Radiat. Oncol. 12:194 (2017)

Verlagsversion

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

Purpose: To investigate radiation oncologists' opinions on important considerations to offering re-irradiation (re-RT) as a treatment option for recurrent glioma. Materials and methods: A survey was conducted with 13 radiation oncologists involved in the care of central nervous system tumor patients. The survey was comprised of 49 questions divided into 2 domains: a demographic section (10 questions) and a case section (5 re-RT cases with 5 to 6 questions representing one or several re-RT treatment dilemmas as may be encountered in the clinic). Respondents were asked to rate the relevance of various factors to offering re-RT, respond to the cases with a decision to offer re-RT vs. not, volume to be treated, margins to be employed, dose/fractionation suggested and any additional comments with respect to rationale in each scenario. Results: Sixty nine percent of responders have been practicing for greater than 10years and 61% have re-RT 20 to 100 patients to date, with 54% seeing 2-5 re-RT cases per month and retreating 1-2 patients per month. Recurrent tumor volume, time since previous radiation therapy, previously administered dose to organs at risk and patient performance status were rated by the majority of responders (85%, 92%, 77%, and 69% respectively) as extremely relevant or very relevant to offering re-RT as an option. Conclusion: The experts' practice of re-RT is still heterogeneous, reflecting the paucity of high-quality prospective data available for decision-making. Nevertheless, practicing radiation oncologists can support own decisions by referring to the cases found suitable for re-RT in this survey.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Web of Science
Times Cited

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

2.568

1.150