Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40822091›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2025

Reirradiation practices of Radiation Therapists (RePoRT) study.

Neva Pang, Alvin Cuni, Amanda Caissie, Leigh Conroy, Aileen Duffton, Winnie Li, Brian Liszewski, Donna H Murrell, Andrea Shessel, Fátima Silva and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A dedicated institutional clinical workflow and peer-review meeting for reirradiation.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. Multi-institutional virtual peer review for reirradiation: dedicated workflow and one-year results.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
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

12 authors.

Neva PangRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alvin CuniRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Amanda CaissieRadiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Leigh ConroyRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Aileen DufftonDepartment of Radiotherapy, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK.
Winnie LiRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Brian LiszewskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Donna H MurrellVerspeeten Family Cancer Centre, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Andrea ShesselRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fátima SilvaRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yat TsangRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael VelecRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Reirradiation for patients with new, recurrent or metastatic tumors is complex and requires intensive collaboration between Radiation Oncologists, Medical Physicists, and Radiation Therapists (RTT). Aside from dosimetry, little has been reported on the role of the RTT in reirradiation. The study characterized the reirradiation patterns-of-practice of RTTs to understand the knowledge and skills being applied in this increasingly important area of cancer care. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, survey was conducted of all RTTs practicing in Canada over a 3-month period. The 48-item questionnaire asked RTTs the frequency of performing a range of reirradiation activities, to self-rate their competency levels, and to identify enablers and barriers to reirradiation practice. The survey was distributed by email and data were analyzed with descriptive statistics or thematic analysis for free-text responses. Results: Responses from 214 RTTs revealed frequent and significant involvement in all steps of reirradiation pathway, ranging from pre-treatment imaging and positioning to patient supportive care. There was lower involvement in advanced reirradiation dosimetry techniques, which coincided lower competency self-ratings and knowledge gaps in this area. Access to prior patient records, standardized reirradiation workflows and multi-disciplinary communication were the most common elements reported as important for reirradiation practice. Conclusions: RTT reported frequent and significant involvement in all steps of the reirradiation care pathway. Providing focused education and training for RTTs on reirradiation, coupled with team workflow optimization may enable more effective, safe and streamlined reirradiation care for patients.

Indexed as

CompetencyPatterns of practiceRadiation therapistRadiation therapyReirradiationSurvey

Identifiers

PMID40822091
PMCPMC12355074

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.