|
|
|
|
Home > Radiation Oncology: Management Decisions
|
|
Radiation Oncology: Management Decisions
|
|
By K.S. Clifford Chao, Carlos A. Perez and Luther W. Brady
|
 (3 Reviews)
|
|
List Price: $94.95
|
|
Our Price: $82.42 Free Shipping! Details
|
|
You Save: $12.53 (13%)
|
|
From our affiliated sellers:
|
|
|
|
|
Availability:
|
Usually ships in 24 hours
|
|
Publisher:
|
Wilkins
|
|
Edition:
|
Third
|
|
Date:
|
December 31, 1969 |
|
Binding:
|
Paperback
|
|
Pages:
|
880
|
|
|
|
| |
| Product Description: |
|
| |
Ideal for on-the-spot consultation, this pocket manual,Radiation Oncology: Management Decisions,provides easily accessible information for residents and practitioners in radiation oncology. It presents the most essential information that is immediately required in the clinical setting. The first eight chapters of the book focus on key basic concepts; the remaining 46 chapters describe treatment regimens for all cancer sites and tumor types. Includes coverage of pain and palliation, and covers all latest therapeutic techniques.This edition includes expanded information on image-guided therapy, 3D techniques, and 4D protocols. The updated cancer staging guidelines have been used throughout the manual. In addition, there is a brand-new chapter devoted to QUANTEC dosage recommendations.
|
|
|
| |
Customers' Reviews:
Add Your Own Review |
 Could have done better, July 5, 2011
By Dr Sal
|
|
The book was long awaited but it is a disappointment.... Not only is it failing to cover the topics comprehensively, the print is so monotonous....so many trials have matured and changed radiation oncology practice since the last edition in 2002, but the emphasis is mainly on QUANTEC and changes in the 7th edition TNM compared to 6th edition.... could have done better, much better...
2 of 2 people found this review helpful
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
Disappointment, January 17, 2012
By fettucine
|
|
Unfortunately I concur with the above review. There is not much in this book that you can't get from other similar older books such as Perez and Gunderson. Would have likely returned the book, but kept it just in case I need a reference. I will wait for a review of the next edition before purchasing.
1 of 1 people found this review helpful
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
 Please re-fit Roach prostate cancer prediction formula - it is proven wrong now by the Italian Study (also needs revisio, February 11, 2012
By Rex Cheung (Main Line, PA, USA)
|
|
Re: Italian validation of the Roach formula study does not validate Roach formula and the data were fitted with wrong models.
While asking Mack Roach if Roach formula needs a confidence interval (to check if the C.I. crosses zero and one), Mack attached this article and we have been using it in a discussion thread that is being very quiet. I wonder if you read this Int J of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics article from a Italian group testing the robustness of Roach's Formula. To my eyes, the data did not fit the model very well, I remember someone rightly criticized one of my papers saying you can force a straight line to fit anything. This data to my eyes seem to fit a bimodal model (is there such a thing?) better, this is an article from wikipedia ([...]). Shouldn't the Roach's intermediate group needs to be subdivided into two groups? But by the law of large numbers, all distribution tends (converges) to normal, so one solution is to include a larger number of patients than the Italian group. However, the trial has some 3000 patients enrolled, similar to the scale of some meta-analysis datasets. I am wondering what do you think? This recent paper also recommended ePLND and lower the target predictive range from 15% to around 6%. What are your and RTOG thoughts on the Italian recommendations ? This was pointed out on January 2, 2002 (when the Chinese Zolodac turns from Rabbit to Dragon)
This kind of academic discussion is nice, I hope you will enjoy it as well, happy new year,
Rex Cheung, M.D., Ph.D.
Reference:
1. Indications for Pelvic Nodal Treatment in Prostate Cancer should Change. Validation of the Roach Formula in a Large Extended Nodal Dissection Series. Firas Abdollah, M.D., Cesare Cozzarini, M.D., Nazareno Suardi, M.D., Andrea Gallina, M.D., Umberto Capitanio, M.D., Marco Bianchi, M.D., Manuela Tutolo, M.D., Andrea Salonia, M.D., Mariangela La Macchia, M.D., Nadia Di Muzio, M.D., Patrizio Rigatti, M.D.,* Francesco Montorsi, M.D., and Alberto Briganti, M.D. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys, in e-print.
This letter was circulated internationally --- This letter is now in press 5/17/12.
0 of 1 people found this review helpful
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
View Cart
Bookmark This Page
Contact Us
