What technology do you think is "the future of rad onc"?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Cremaster reflex

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
36
Reaction score
11
Hey everyone, I am a preclinical student interested in rad onc preparing for a class debate. We are to debate about what technology we think should get the most research funding in rad onc and we are supposed to get professional opinions on this. I read a research review article from 2000 talking about how proton therapy was the future but that was 2001 and have not found anything more recent in regards to this. What do you think; proton, IMRT, imagining modalities etc.? I appreciate your time

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
I dont have much to say about this really; it is a bit difficult to understand our field as a med student. I think the future of rad onc is not in rad onc actually. It is in combination treatment w targeted therapeutics. I wouldnt put much more $ in development of the technologies but Ill be interested to hear what our more seasoned vets around here think.

Also this might be helpful for your project: http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/jco.2014.55.6613
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Doubtful the future is in further technology advances. Things like SBRT will continue to be important. Brachy may make more of a come-back. Overall the field will move more toward hypofractionation. Protons, Carbon ions, will have utility in some tumors but doubtful they will have significant clinical benefits over current forms in most cancers. I think the future will be in figuring out how to combine radiation with other forms of systemic therapy and exploiting the ascopal effect. Just had an immunotherapy pt in our dept have a great response in out of field lymph nodes after a short palliative course. Other area is radio-protection and radio-sensitization where we are largely behind as well.
Some discussions are ongoing about the future of our field: should we expand our scope? have inpatient service and do more "medicine"? merge with "IR" and nuclear medicine and do more "therapeutic radiology"? should we expand to giving chemo too? Are all of these horrible ideas?---Depends on who you ask. Nobody is going to be able to tell you much, just speculate.

What is clear is that you probably shouldn't go into radiation oncology if you know you want to absolutely be in a particular location for employment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Doubtful the future is in further technology advances. Things like SBRT will continue to be important. Brachy may make more of a come-back. Overall the field will move more toward hypofractionation. Protons, Carbon ions, will have utility in some tumors but doubtful they will have significant clinical benefits over current forms in most cancers. I think the future will be in figuring out how to combine radiation with other forms of systemic therapy and exploiting the ascopal effect. Just had an immunotherapy pt in our dept have a great response in out of field lymph nodes after a short palliative course. Other area is radio-protection and radio-sensitization where we are largely behind as well.
Some discussions are ongoing about the future of our field: should we expand our scope? have inpatient service and do more "medicine"? merge with "IR" and nuclear medicine and do more "therapeutic radiology"? should we expand to giving chemo too? Are all of these horrible ideas?---Depends on who you ask. Nobody is going to be able to tell you much, just speculate.

What is clear is that you probably shouldn't go into radiation oncology if you know you want to absolutely be in a particular location for employment.

I appreciate the responses. So you think it would be best to do research in areas like SBRT, hypofractionation, and radio-protection/radio-sensitization? How does this relate to the ability to publish research in these areas vs. areas you mention may be less important moving forward?

Additionally, I have read about your last point and the job market. If a student's interests were to switch from radiation oncology to something else, how applicable would radiation oncology specific research be to other fields as far as residency applications go?

Again, I know you all are very busy and I really appreciate your time.
 
More frequent adaptive planning, auto contouring,, etc.

I'm think AI and better algorithms will eventually make its way into rad onc treatment planning software to assist the above
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think we went from:
1. The 2D era--plain films, no IGRT
2. The 3D era--Volumetric planning, IGRT for position verification
3. We're currently working through the 4D era--high quality IGRT, daily adaptive replanning, real time imaging and motion tracking. The prototypical machine here is the MRI-linac, though some argue that x-ray based techniques are sufficient or improving for this as well. Currently, many of these techniques are expensive, time consuming, and with somewhat unclear applications, but this will get better with time.

How this interacts with costs and proven clinical benefits is complicated. Once CBCT got a billing code and people made money from it, everyone integrated CBCT into practice. If MRI guidance gets a billing code and becomes profitable, it'll be off to the races on that. If it doesn't, then it'll probably remain an academic toy.

My guess is that particle therapies will get cheaper with time and more rapidly proliferate when there is a reliable single vault proton unit on the order of $10 million (as opposed to $20-$30 where we are now). It's all based on business models and if you can profit on the machines. If protons get reimbursement cuts, they'll wither and die back to a very limited number of centers.

All the research money is in the abscopal effect and in combining immunotherapy drugs with RT. There are a few other things like novel chemo agents (TKIs, etc) as well. That's great because there's money for it from the drug companies, as opposed to the NIH which almost ignores radiation oncology and the RT device manufacturers who fund very little.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think we went from:
1. The 2D era--plain films, no IGRT
2. The 3D era--Volumetric planning, IGRT for position verification
3. We're currently working through the 4D era--high quality IGRT, daily adaptive replanning, real time imaging and motion tracking. The prototypical machine here is the MRI-linac, though some argue that x-ray based techniques are sufficient or improving for this as well. Currently these techniques are expensive, time consuming, and with somewhat unclear applications, but this will get better with time.

How this interacts with costs and proven clinical benefits is complicated. Once CBCT got a billing code and people made money from it, it was off the races. If MRI guidance gets a billing code and becomes profitable, it'll be off to the races on that. If it doesn't, then it'll probably remain an academic toy.

My guess is that particle therapies will get cheaper with time and more rapidly proliferate when there is a reliable single vault proton unit on the order of $10 million (as opposed to $20-$30 where we are now). It's all based on business models and if you can profit on the machines. If protons get reimbursement cuts, they'll wither and die back to a very limited number of centers.

All the research money is in the abscopal effect and in combining immunotherapy drugs with RT. There are a few other things like novel chemo agents (TKIs, etc) as well. That's great because there's money for it from the drug companies, as opposed to the NIH which almost ignores radiation oncology and the RT device manufacturers who fund very little.

Take into account recent proposed NIH budget cuts in the billions so wont expect to see ground breaking research soon either.
 
Computers are shaping the future nowadays. AI is still not as far as we may have thought in the 90s, but it will definetely play an important role in the future. Cars running on autopilot will be driving in our streets within the next couple of years.
Radiation oncology will certainly be influenced by these innovations.

Other medical professions (like pathologists and radiologists) may even struggle, as recent articles reported.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1606181

Google recently pointed out that its algorithms are better than pathologists in diagnosing breast cancer.
Research Blog: Assisting Pathologists in Detecting Cancer with Deep Learning

I expect these advances to gain popularity in radiation oncology as well and auto-contouring may indeed become reality in 10-15 years.


On the other hand radiation oncology still lacks a "breakthrough" innovation that will allow it to deliver advanced treatment cheaper. If such a technology were to become available that would allow us to accelerate particles without a cyclotron, then proton and heavy ions would be easily accessible and available everywhere. The dielectric wall accelerator (DWA) was an interesting concept, mainly sponsored by Accuray, but other innovations may become available within the next decade. Photonics are one of the candidates for accelerating particles.

Many will say: "That will never happen" or "We won't live to see it". When I went to high school, I surfed the internet with a 28.8kbps modem. I never pictured that 10 years later I would be watching youtube videos on my mobile phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
miniaturizing/cheapening particle accelerators is probably future. You really have to consider the relationship between systemic and local therapies. Maybe, if systemic therapies become more effective, we wont need to deliver as high a radiation dose with fancy technology.

Hodgkins is on one end of the spectrum (smaller fields/ lower doses- it may be silly to give 20Gy with protons or an mri guided linac), pancreatic ca is on the other-(will improvements in local control be meaningful without a gain in systemic efficacy?
 
Both Electa and Varian are working feverishly on automated treatment planning.
 
Hodgkins is on one end of the spectrum (smaller fields/ lower doses- it may be silly to give 20Gy with protons or an mri guided linac), pancreatic ca is on the other-(will improvements in local control be meaningful without a gain in systemic efficacy?
I disagress.
Delivering 20 Gy for Hodgkins lymphoma with IMPT is in my opinion more worth striving for than treating prostate cancer with protons.
This is a disease where radiation oncology is being pushed aside by chemotherapy with the main argument being, that radiation therapy is harmful to the patient. Why? Because Hodgkins survivors that were treated 20-30 years ago are being treated today for congestive heart failure, major arteriosclerosis, breast cancer, etc... Certainly, they were all treated with doses of 30+ Gy and often with EFRT using 2D-techniques, but noone cares about that.
Radiation oncology is being put to test based on long term toxicity of long forgotted treatment regiments.

It is therefore very important to strive for protons for diseases like Hodgkins to accomplish this:

016bf6c.png

Hoppe et al 2012
Effective dose reduction to cardiac structures using protons compared with 3DCRT and IMRT in mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma. - PubMed - NCBI
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think harnessing the abscopal effect in non-melanoma would be a good place to start.

I agree that as Protons gets cheaper it'll continue to be used for questionable indications.

I don't disagree, with Palex, that mediastinal Hodgkin's is a bad place to start with expanding protons, but the people that were treated 20-30 years ago were treated with gigantic fields to much higher doses than 20Gy. I think it's disingenuous to state that what we do now puts those patients at the same risk of all the post-RT effects compared to huge mantle radiation fields.

And of course Stanford will have articles out extolling the virtues of proton therapy on dosimetry - that's what literally every proton center does, show that dosimetry is better. Anything that shows improvement in toxicity (cause clinical outcomes are going to be the same as IMRT)? If they charge the same as IMRT, then I have no issues (a la Mayo) but it's getting 5x IMRT price for prostate protons that (in part) makes the government look at our whole field like a problem.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Payment reform is the future of Rad Onc.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Speaking of.....

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/878390

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) says it will soon submit its proposal for a specialty-specific advanced alternative payment model (APM) to a government committee for approval.

ASTRO initiated the process in October 2016 with the US Department of Health and Human Services' Physician Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC). That committee makes recommendations to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which, in turn, decides whether a model is worthy of a pilot.

Now, ASTRO hopes to seek formal approval for the Radiation Oncology Total Cost of Care advanced APM next month, in May 2017, said Anne Hubbard, ASTRO director of health policy.

Hubbard spoke here at the Association of Community Cancer Centers 43rd Annual Meeting.

ASTRO is hopeful that if the PTAC recommends its payment model, a pilot will be next. The group's formal application will be made public when it is finished, and it will solicit comments, she said.

"We're also very interested in hearing from folks who are interested in piloting the model," Hubbard said.

The organization began its work on a radiation oncology–specific APM in late 2015, she said. "We felt like we wanted to develop a radiation oncology alternative payment model that would give radiation oncologists an opportunity to meaningfully and viably participate," she said.

As required by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), all physicians in 2017 must choose one of two paths to be eligible to participate in Medicare's Quality Payment Program: the Merit Based Incentive System (MIPS) or an APM.
 
Many of us went into this field for technical reasons - the technology is very cool, advances quickly, and is fun to work with. However, to quote the immortal words of Puff Daddy "it's all about the Benjamins."

On this forum, we frequently bemoan that academic center expansion hurts us both directly (by expanding aggressively into the community and/or buying out existing community practices) and indirectly (unbridled expansion of labor pool). What can we do, we ask, against the onslaught of such a mighty juggernaut? Two words: payment reform. Physician-owned private practice groups can potentially provide care more cheaply (for both CMS and the patient) and more efficiently. This is our advantage to take back some of our autonomy.

I would give a private practice Rad Onc group a much higher probability of longevity if they embrace payment reform rather than buy a proton machine or MRI based linac.
 

Did I read that correctly, that practices have to be APEX accredited to participate? "The model would require certification by the ASTRO Accreditation Program for Excellence and quality reporting using the MIPS Radiation Oncology Measures Set." Seems ridiculous to me.

"Payment reform" really just means "decrease payments" so I'm much more pessimistic that it's going to be good for our field. I'm not saying it's not going to happen, but I don't think whether you embrace it or not will make any difference. We will all need to be ruthlessly efficient, something private practices certainly are much better at than large academic practices/CTCA/etc, however, so at least that's in our corner. Payment reform will, by design, decrease our reimbursement per patient, resulting in increased patient load per radonc to maintain income, decreased hiring of new partners, etc. I for one do not plan on hiring someone once my partner retires, specifically because of upcoming payment reform.
 
Did I read that correctly, that practices have to be APEX accredited to participate? "The model would require certification by the ASTRO Accreditation Program for Excellence and quality reporting using the MIPS Radiation Oncology Measures Set." Seems ridiculous to me.

"Payment reform" really just means "decrease payments" so I'm much more pessimistic that it's going to be good for our field. I'm not saying it's not going to happen, but I don't think whether you embrace it or not will make any difference. We will all need to be ruthlessly efficient, something private practices certainly are much better at than large academic practices/CTCA/etc, however, so at least that's in our corner. Payment reform will, by design, decrease our reimbursement per patient, resulting in increased patient load per radonc to maintain income, decreased hiring of new partners, etc. I for one do not plan on hiring someone once my partner retires, specifically because of upcoming payment reform.


Agreed. It really doesn't matter if you become "ruthlessly efficient" or not. The payments will continue to fall. You'll probably just end up spinning your wheels faster and faster just to stay in place. Autonomy and ownership is nice but it's a luxury that more places simply cannot afford. So they'll join up with a corporate group or a hospital and call it a day. Let someone else worry about it. Oncology is just the latest target of the government as we would expect more in the future. I think more rad oncs will find that the CMS "target price" simply isn't worth it.
 
Did I read that correctly, that practices have to be APEX accredited to participate? "The model would require certification by the ASTRO Accreditation Program for Excellence and quality reporting using the MIPS Radiation Oncology Measures Set." Seems ridiculous to me.

"Payment reform" really just means "decrease payments" so I'm much more pessimistic that it's going to be good for our field. I'm not saying it's not going to happen, but I don't think whether you embrace it or not will make any difference. We will all need to be ruthlessly efficient, something private practices certainly are much better at than large academic practices/CTCA/etc, however, so at least that's in our corner. Payment reform will, by design, decrease our reimbursement per patient, resulting in increased patient load per radonc to maintain income, decreased hiring of new partners, etc. I for one do not plan on hiring someone once my partner retires, specifically because of upcoming payment reform.

Yeah I saw that line also but didn't put it together with APEX until you pointed it out. Definitely sounds like a racket to support astro in that case. Maybe that is how they plan to get practices to switch from acr to apex accreditation?
 
Although payment reform is, basically, a long-term euphemism for "reduced payment" I would whole-heartedly disagree that embracing it is not a good thing. Many "quality measures" such as MU/PQRS had nice bonuses for early adopters - it was only in later years that they turned into penalties for non-compliance. Ditto with OCM/MACRA.

Therefore, early adoption and participation will allow better short/long-term outcomes for your group.
 
Although payment reform is, basically, a long-term euphemism for "reduced payment" I would whole-heartedly disagree that embracing it is not a good thing. Many "quality measures" such as MU/PQRS had nice bonuses for early adopters - it was only in later years that they turned into penalties for non-compliance. Ditto with OCM/MACRA.

Therefore, early adoption and participation will allow better short/long-term outcomes for your group.
I agree that the carrots are better up front, so it can make sense to participate. However, we're already ACRO accredited. We now are supposed to go back and get APEX accreditation just for the payment model? Man, it's stuff like this that's making me happier and happier I haven't renewed my ASTRO membership yet. What BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well, physicians will be the last humans to go from RadOnc Dept, but I dread having to sign automated plans.
 
Top