Search

Purpose: This survey aimed to understand the practice pattern and attitude of Indian doctors towards prostate brachytherapy. Material and methods: A 21-point questionnaire was designed in Google form and sent to radiation oncologists practicing in India, using texts, mails, and social media. Responses were collated, and descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results: A total of 212 radiation oncologists from 136 centers responded to the survey questionnaire, with majority (66%) being post-specialty training > 6 years. We found that about 44.3% (n = 94) of respondents do not practice interstitial brachytherapy for any site, and majority (83.3%, n = 175) do not practice high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy. Only 2.8% (n = 6) of doctors preferred boost by brachytherapy compared with 38.1% (n = 80) of respondents, who favored stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) boost. When asked about the indication of HDR prostate brachytherapy in Indian setting, 32.5% (n = 67) of respondents favored monotherapy, 46.1% (n = 95) of oncologists thought boost as a good indication, and 21.4% (n = 44) preferred re-irradiation/salvage setting. The most cited reason for prostate brachytherapy not being popularly practiced in India was lack of training (84.8%, n = 179). It was also noted that out of 80 respondents who practiced SBRT for prostate boost, 37 would prefer HDR brachytherapy boost if given adequate training and facilities. Conclusions: The present survey provided insight on practice of prostate brachytherapy in India. It is evident that majority of radiation oncologists do not practice HDR prostate brachytherapy due to lack of training and infrastructure. Indian physicians are willing to learn and start prostate brachytherapy procedures if dedicated training and workshops are organized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This manuscript represents a collaboration from an international group of quality and safety expert radiation oncologists. It is a position/review paper with the specific aim of defining the role of the radiation oncologist in quality and safety management. This manuscript is unique in that we recommend specific quality assurance/control tasks and correlated quality and indicators and safety measures that are the responsibility of the radiation oncologist. The article addresses the role of the radiation oncologist in quality and safety from a strong perspective of multidisciplinarity and teamwork. Our manuscript is "cross-cutting" and applicable to radiation oncologist in any practice setting (i.e. low middle-income countries). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]