Radiation Oncologists in the United States

Lewis, Rebecca S.; Sunshine, Jonathan H.

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.02.053

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2003, it was reported that only approximately one-quarter (23%) of radiation oncology trainees and post-training, professionally active, radiation oncologists were women, a statistic far behind the approximately 40% of trainees in all physician fields who were women (5). In our study, we found that women comprised 28% of active radiation oncologists in academia, a proportion only slightly greater than the reported 23% overall (both academia and private practice).…”

Section: Women In Radiation Oncologycontrasting

confidence: 48%

“…Gender differences in scholarly activity are well-documented across the spectrum of scientific disciplines (5)(6)(7)(8)(9). The trend appears to also hold true in academic radiation oncology, as evidenced by the significantly lower mean and quartile h-index values for female radiation oncologists overall compared with their male counterparts (Table 1) (10).…”

Section: Women In Radiation Oncologymentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimation of Citation-Based Scholarly Activity Among Radiation Oncology Faculty at Domestic Residency-Training Institutions: 1996–2007

Choi

Fuller

Thomas

2009

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Women In Radiation Oncologycontrasting

confidence: 48%

Section: Women In Radiation Oncologymentioning

confidence: 94%

Estimation of Citation-Based Scholarly Activity Among Radiation Oncology Faculty at Domestic Residency-Training Institutions: 1996–2007

Choi

Fuller

Thomas

2009

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When comparing sued radiation oncologists in the PIAA DSP to the national radiation oncology workforce, we found that a greater proportion of sued physicians were male, and that only 5–6% of sued female physicians reported working part-time which is less than national estimates (17.5%) 27 . The larger proportion of males working full time may have influenced the gender of sued physicians, however the changing gender demographics of the radiation oncology workforce likely played a larger role; a greater number of claims were closed early in the study period when men represented a greater proportion of the workforce 22 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Medical Malpractice Claims in Radiation Oncology: A Population-Based Study 1985-2012

Marshall

Punglia

Fox

et al. 2015

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose/Objective(s) To determine trends in radiation oncology malpractice claims and expenses during the last 28 years and compare malpractice claims between radiation oncology and other specialties. Methods and Materials We performed a retrospective analysis of closed malpractice claims filed from 1985 to 2012 collected by a nationwide medical liability insurance trade association. We analyzed characteristics and trends among closed claims, indemnity payments (payments to plaintiff), and litigation expenses. We also compared radiation oncology to 21 other medical specialties. Time series dollar amounts were adjusted for inflation (2012 index year). Results There were 1,517 closed claims involving radiation oncology, of which 342 (22.5%) were paid. Average and median indemnity payments were $276,792 and $122,500, ranking 5th and 8th among the 22 specialty groups, respectively. Linear regression modeling of time trends showed decreasing total number of claims (β=−1.96 annually, p=0.003), increasing average litigation expenses paid (β=+$1472 annually, p≤0.001), and no significant change in average indemnity payments (β=−$681, p=0.89). Conclusions Medical professional liability claims filed against radiation oncologists are not common and have declined in recent years. However, indemnity payments in radiation oncology are large relative to many other specialties. In recent years, the average indemnity payment has been stable, while litigation expenses have increased.

show abstract

“…The number of completed responses in our survey (n = 352) compare well with the survey of Mohs surgeons (n = 118), although their response rate is higher at 47% due the fewer invited participants [25]. Given that the American Board of Radiology reported 3943 full-time equivalent ROs in 2010 [43], and approximately 9.5% of ROs specialize in head and neck cancers [28], this survey was successful in garnering treatment recommendations from an estimated 60% of all ROs specializing in head and neck cancers. Hence, we believe the findings of our survey are valid.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Treatment Recommendations among Radiation Oncologists in the Treatment of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma with Perineural Invasion

Parvathaneni¹,

Shetti²,

Berg³

et al. 2016

JCT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Post-operative radiotherapy (PORT) for resected cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) with perineural invasion (PNI) is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a survey to review treatment recommendations among Radiation Oncologists (ROs) in the management of CSCC with PNI. Materials & Methods: In March 2011, we contacted all ROs and trainees in the US through email addresses listed in the 2009 ASTRO directory. Our web-based survey presented clinical vignettes involving Mohs micrographically resected CSCC with microscopic PNI (mPNI) or clinical PNI (cPNI). For each vignette, ROs were asked to indicate if PORT was appropriate and to further specify the dose and volume to treat. Results: Three hundred fifty two responses were completed and analyzed. The majority of ROs (72%) had over 10 years of post residency experience. 64% of the sampled ROs had a special interest in treating head and neck cancers, and 64% treated 4 or more cases per year. Approximately 95% recommended PORT for cPNI whereas 59% recommended PORT for mPNI. Post residency experience (10+ yrs vs. <10 yrs) was associated with a greater propensity to recommend PORT for mPNI (48% vs. 30%, p = 0.005) and for mPNI of deep subcutaneous non-named nerve involvement (80% vs. 60%, p = 0.001). ROs treating 8 or more cases per year (vs. <7) were more likely to recommend PORT for mPNI in immunocompromised patients (74% vs. 57%, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates significant variability among ROs in the management of CSCC with mPNI. For cases of cPNI, an overwhelming majority recom- 825mended PORT. In cases of mPNI, there was no consensus for recommending PORT, although experienced practitioners had a lower threshold for offering treatment. These results indicate the need for prospective clinical studies to clarify the role of PORT in CSCC patients with mPNI.

show abstract

Radiation Oncologists in the United States

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

Estimation of Citation-Based Scholarly Activity Among Radiation Oncology Faculty at Domestic Residency-Training Institutions: 1996–2007

Estimation of Citation-Based Scholarly Activity Among Radiation Oncology Faculty at Domestic Residency-Training Institutions: 1996–2007

Medical Malpractice Claims in Radiation Oncology: A Population-Based Study 1985-2012

Treatment Recommendations among Radiation Oncologists in the Treatment of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma with Perineural Invasion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About