UCLA Journal of Radiation Oncology SPRING 2024 - Flipbook - Page 41
UCLA RADIATION ONCOLOGY JOURNAL
the current radiation therapy planning and treatment process in which on-table daily adaptive radiation
therapy is the norm, and perhaps even without a separate simulation. As such, aggressive study in this
space followed by rapid evidence-based implementation is warranted. ☐
References
1. JJW Lagendijk, BW Raaymakers, CAT Van Den Berg, et al. MR guidance in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol, 59 (21
(2014), 10.1088/0031-9155/59/21/R349
2. S Klüter. Technical design and concept of a 0.35 T MR-Linac. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol, 18 (2019), 10.1016/j.
ctro.2019.04.007
3. J Lamb, M Cao, A Kishan, et al. Online adaptive radiation therapy: Implementation of a new process of care.
Cureus, 9 (8) (2017), 10.7759/cureus.1618
4. N Shaverdian, Y Yang, P Hu, et al. Feasibility evaluation of diffusion-weighted imaging using an integrated
MRI-radiotherapy system for response assessment to neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer. Br J Radiol, 90 (1071)
(2017), Article 20160739, 10.1259/bjr.20160739
5. MD Chuong, MA Clark, LE Henke, et al. Patterns of utilization and clinical adoption of 0.35 MR-guided
radiation therapy in the United States—understanding the transition to adaptive, ultra-hypofractionated
treatments. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 111 (3) (2021), pp. 161-168, 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1400
6. BJ Slotman, MA Clark, E Özyar, et al. Clinical adoption patterns of 0.35 Tesla MR-guided radiation therapy in
Europe and Asia. Radiat Oncol, 17 (1) (2022), p. 146, 10.1186/s13014-022-02114-2
7. Y Lievens, M Pijls-Johannesma. Health economic controversy and cost-effectiveness of proton therapy. Semin
Radiat Oncol, 23 (2) (2013), pp. 134-141, 10.1016/j.semradonc.2012.11.005
8. PE Wallner, ML Steinberg, AA Konski. Controversies in the adoption of new healthcare technologies. Front
Radiat Ther Oncol, 43 (2011), pp. 60-78, 10.1159/000322401
9. S Teckie, SA McCloskey, ML Steinberg. Value: A framework for radiation oncology. J Clin Oncol, 32 (2014), pp.
2864-2870, 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1150
10. ME Porter. What is value in health care?. N Engl J Med, 363 (26) (2010), pp. 2477-2481, 10.1056/NEJMp1011024
11. A Donabedian. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q, 83 (4) (2005), pp. 691-729, 10.1111/j.14680009.2005.00397
12. AC Raldow, EM Chang and ML Steinberg, Healthcare economics and health policy, In: EC Halperin, DE Wazer,
CA Perez and LW Brady, Perez and Brady's Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology, ed 7, Wolters Kluwer;
Philadelphia, PA
13. TR Bortfeld, JS Loeffler. Three ways to make proton therapy affordable. Nature, 549 (7673) (2017), pp. 451-453,
10.1038/549451a
14. NR Parikh, PP Lee, SS Raman, et al. Time-driven activity-based costing comparison of CT-guided versus MRguided SBRT. JCO Oncol Pract, 16 (11) (2020), pp. e1378-e1385, 10.1200/jop.19.00605
15. A Castelluccia, P Mincarone, MR Tumolo, et al. Economic evaluations of magnetic resonance image-guided
radiotherapy (MRIgRT): A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19 (17) (2022), p. 10800, 10.3390/
ijerph191710800
16. NR Parikh, MA Clark, P Patel, et al. Time-driven activity-based costing of CT-guided vs MR-guided prostate
SBRT. Appl Radiat Oncol, 10 (3) (2021), pp. 33-40
17. M van Herk, A McWilliam, M Dubec, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiation therapy:
A short strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 101 (5)
(2018), pp. 1057-1060, 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.11.009
18. C Hehakaya, AM Sharma, JRN van der Voort Van Zijp, et al. Implementation of magnetic resonance
imaging-guided radiation therapy in routine care: Opportunities and challenges in the United States.
Adv Radiat Oncol, 7 (5) (2022), Article 100953, 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100953
41