Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40082901›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025

Clinical practice in stereotactic radiotherapy delivery at treatment unit: a practitioner survey and consensus-based recommendations for multidisciplinary professional development.

Nicolas Martz, Vincent Marchesi, Maximilien Rogé, Camille Verry, Pierre Clavère, Karine Peignaux, Yazid Belkacemi, Alexandre Coutte, Véronique Vendrely, Delphine Antoni and 10 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Nicolas MartzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France. n.martz@nancy.unicancer.fr.
Vincent MarchesiDepartment of Medical Physics, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
Maximilien RogéDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, 76000, Rouen, France.
Camille VerryRadiotherapy Department, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France.
Pierre ClavèreRadiotherapy Department, University Hospital, Limoges, France.
Karine PeignauxDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Centre Georges-Francois Leclerc, Dijon, France.
Yazid BelkacemiAP-HP, Radiation Therapy and Breast Center of Henri Mondor, University of Paris Est Creteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.
Alexandre CoutteDepartment of Radiation Therapy, CHU d'Amiens, Amiens, France.
Véronique VendrelyRadiation Oncology Department, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Delphine AntoniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), Strasbourg, France.
Elise Champeau-OrangeRadiation Oncology Department, CHU Orléans, Orléans, France.
Sébastien ThureauRadiotherapy Department and QuantIF LITIS (EA4108), Centre Henri Becquerel, 76000, Rouen, France.
Khadija AabibouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
Claire DrouinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
Amandine GrimonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
Christelle MonodDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
Perrine FarasseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
Stéphane SupiotDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes, St-Herblain, France.
Jean-Christophe FaivreDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
head of radiation department of UNICANCER, CHU/CHR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) is on the rise around the world. We aimed to provide recommendations to streamline and assess medical practices in SRT delivery at treatment unit, while complying with legal obligations concerning safety. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted an online closed practice survey for heads of radiotherapy departments both nationally in comprehensive cancer centers and university hospitals throughout France, and internationally. The aim was to obtain a better understanding of how the delivery of SRT at treatment unit was managed across different centers according to experience, and to the machines and repositioning techniques used. Radiation oncologists (ROs) were also asked to assess the difficulties of technical implementation in the department, and whether residents were involved in the validation and delivery of SRT. Differences among countries regarding legislation governing the validation of SRT sessions at treatment unit were also collected. A videoconference was then held to draw up proposals for regulatory changes based on the results obtained. Finally, recommendations were drawn up by the steering committee and approved by heads of radiotherapy departments in comprehensive cancer centers and university hospitals throughout France.

resultsThirty-five French centers and 15 centers from 14 foreign countries responded to the questionnaire. The most common stereotactic machines were Varian Truebeam STX® (45%) and Cyberknife® (39.2%). The departments had been performing SRT for more than 10 years in 60.5% of cases, and for less than 5 years in 10.1% of cases. A RO validated the SRT fractions at each session in 62.9% of French departments, while in countries outside France RO validation concerned the first fraction only for 35.3% or was performed only in the event of an issue for 23.5%. RO patient positioning validation of SRT fractions were considered as: time-consuming / task-interrupting (80%); having no added value with regards its systematic use (41.8%); and leading to a loss of machine time (33.1%). Most heads of departments would like to see an evolution towards systematic RO validation for the first session, then validation by a radiation therapist (RTT) for all subsequent sessions, leaving open the possibility of RO intervention when required in case of difficulty. We drew up a task delegation procedure to meet these requirements.

conclusionComparing the French practice to international ones confirmed the need to develop and harmonize recommendations in terms of patient positioning validation at treatment unit. Regulatory changes incorporating a competence transfer to RTTs, particularly after the empowerment process, is key. However, these changes need to be adapted to the experience of each Center and to that of each RTT, as assessed with clearly established criteria and learning curve.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'RadiosurgeryFranceHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesLegislationPatient positioning verificationRadiation oncologist validationRegulatory frameworkStereotactic radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID40082901
PMCPMC11905610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.