Introducing Rad Onc Tables... the app! The app interfaces live with the sheet and displays the data in a file-like format The functionality is ultra fast You can search, click links to studies, report an error App dev all thx to Matthew Culbert @culbert_md @EstesRadonc 1/

PROTEUS trial entry and commentary on rad onc tables is up 🦠

Every now and then, history calls us to stand up for justice and protect patients from relentless systemic misinformation campaigns that are literally killing them. This includes those originally funded by tobacco companies, which did everything legally possible to interfere with and obscure promising clinical data showing the life-saving efficacy of lung screening. Their key tactic? Introducing terms like “overdiagnosis” and “harms of screening” into the medical literature, which led generations of trained physicians to believe screening does more harm than good. Their highly effective strategies—carried out through influential epidemiologists in the 1980s who received large direct payments from tobacco and insurance companies to engineer doubt about early lung cancer detection—successfully delayed the implementation of annual low-dose chest CT for decades. The doubt they created persists to this day regarding the value of lung cancer screening, despite multiple NEJM publications confirming that early detection reduces lung cancer mortality more than any FDA-approved drug or device (NLST 2011, 2019; NELSON 2020). Today marks a triumphant moment in our history in tackling this decades-old issue: three (3) professional medical societies representing thoracic surgeons, radiologists, and radiation oncologists united to endorse simultaneous publication of an editorial that Annals of Internal Medicine refused to publish because it criticized a flawed paper they had published. That publication generated not only angst, but also national attention that further perpetuated concerns about the “harms of screening” in a study that was clearly designed to make lung screening appear harmful and was methodologically flawed. The societies - @STS_CTsurgery, @RadiologyACR, and @ASTRO_org - deserve commendation for their executive boards' support of this powerful message demanding higher standards for reporting the true safety of lung screening to save more lives. Annals of Thoracic Surgery authors.elsevier.com/a/1mTlg… JACR authors.elsevier.com/a/1mTlg… IJROBP redjournal.org/article/S0360…

Imagine 4 new anticancer drugs Pallituzumab, Geriatriximab, Symptomab, & Exercizumab hit the market. They should dominate the plenary sessions at ASCO & command billion-dollar revenue. But they don't because they're nonpharmacologic & shame on us. Read our opinion piece in @JCO_ASCO ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.120…

It's time for #radoncs to get more words like this back into our vernacular. I promise, it's not that difficult. 😎

Great article advising us to use the term “toxicity” less and stick to adverse effects As such the term “toxicity” has almost completely been removed from Radonc tables and replaced with adverse effects Easy w “find and replace” redjournal.org/article/S0360… @DrewMoghanaki @sueyom

👋Hi friends! Check out the Sheets version of the Airtable with 53 ready-to-use site-specific templates derived from the ASTRO consensus paper (PMID 30576843). The program generates output that is compatible with all treatment planning systems. #radonc bit.ly/StructureNamingSheets

Merry Christmas! We have a gift to share w/you for – a radiation oncology tool to create & name (DICOM-RT), TG-263 compatible structure sets to planning cancer treatments for your patients. A #radonc #medphys thread 1/ The @IJROBP article here: sciencedirect.com/science/ar…

The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) issued the following statement regarding the PROSPECT clinical trial for patients with resectable rectal cancer: lnkd.in/eAKgFCru #radiotherapy #radiationoncology #radonc

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Gastrointestinal Cancers Resource Panel issued the following statement regarding the PROSPECT clinical trial for patients with rectal cancer: astro.org/News-and-Publicati…

PROSPECT showed worse sexual function with RT, but RTOG 0822 evaluating IMRT by CTCAE for rectal cancer did not. Maybe it’s time to rerun an IMRT trial with higher power, PROs, and HRQOL? 🤔

Slight updates to PROSPECT commentary. Important to remember that this trial is noninferiority, and neither arm is necessarily preferred over the other. Pts can select therapy Some in the trial might have done well with chemoRT alone and no FOLFOX

ADAURA ⭐️ It’s one of the more simultaneously controversial and landmark studies to hit the tables in a while At rad onc tables we don’t like to be boring, so we’ve spilled the tea 🫖 in the commentary 👇🏻 Thanks to all on Twitter who have provided comments - many are cited

PROSPECT is now on the app 💪🏻⚡️ Let us know what you think about the commentary 👇🏻 The oral boards study guide has been updated as well Congrats to the investigators for this landmark trial that will change practice for many