Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology in 2013

This paper describes the ongoing structure of radiation oncology in Japan in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load and geographic distribution to identify and overcome any existing limitations. From December 2014 to July 2017, the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology conducted a questionnaire based on the Japanese national structure survey of radiation oncology in 2013. Data were analyzed based on institutional stratification by the annual number of new patients treated with radiotherapy per institution. The estimated annual numbers of new and total (new plus repeat) patients treated with radiation were 216 000 and 257 000, respectively. Additionally, the estimated cancer incidence was 862 452 cases with ~25.0% of all newly diagnosed patients being treated with radiation. The types and numbers of treatment devices actually used included linear accelerator (LINAC; n = 880), Gamma Knife (n = 45), 60Co remote afterloading system (RALS; n = 23) and 192Ir RALS (n = 128). The LINAC system used dual-energy functions in 675 units, 3D conformal radiotherapy functions in 785 and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) functions in 494. There were 831 Japan Radiological Society/Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology-certified radiation oncologists, 1130.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) radiation oncologists, 2214.6 FTE radiotherapy technologists, 196.6 FTE medical physicists, 183.8 FTE radiotherapy quality managers and 856.7 FTE nurses. The frequency of IMRT use significantly increased during this time. In conclusion, the Japanese structure of radiation oncology has clearly improved in terms of equipment and utility although there was a shortage of personnel in 2013

Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology in 2015.

This article describes the ongoing structure of radiation oncology in Japan in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load and geographic distribution to identify and overcome any existing limitations. From May 2016 to August 2018, the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology conducted a questionnaire based on the Japanese national structure survey of radiation oncology in 2015. Data were analyzed based on the institutional stratification by the annual number of new patients treated with radiotherapy per institution. The estimated annual numbers of new and total (new plus repeat) patients treated with radiation were 225 000 and 271 000, respectively. Additionally, the estimated cancer incidence was 891 445 cases with approximately 25.2% of all newly diagnosed patients being treated with radiation. The types and numbers of treatment devices actually used included linear accelerator (linac; n = 936), Gamma Knife (n = 43), 60Co remote afterloading system (RALS; n = 21), and 192Ir RALS (n = 129). The linac system used dual-energy functions in 754 units, 3D conformal radiotherapy functions in 867, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) functions in 628. There were 899 Japan Radiological Society/Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology-certified radiation oncologists (RO), 1213.9 full-time equivalent (FTE) ROs, 2394.2 FTE radiotherapy technologists (RTT), 295.7 FTE medical physicists, 210.2 FTE radiotherapy quality managers, and 906.1 FTE nurses. The frequency of IMRT use significantly increased during this time. In conclusion, the Japanese structure of radiation oncology has clearly improved in terms of equipment and utility although there was a shortage of personnel in 2015

Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology i n 2009 with special reference to designated canser care hospitals

BACKGROUND: The structure of radiation oncology in designated cancer care hospitals in Japan was surveyed in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load, and geographic distribution, and compared with the structure in other radiotherapy facilities and the previous survey.METHODS: The Japanese Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology surveyed the national structure of radiation oncology in 2009. The structures of 365 designated cancer care hospitals and 335 other radiotherapy facilities were compared.RESULTS: Designated cancer care hospitals accounted for 50.0 % of all the radiotherapy facilities in Japan. The patterns of equipment and personnel in designated cancer care hospitals and the other radiotherapy facilities were, respectively, as follows: linear accelerators per facility: 1.4 and 1.0; dual-energy function: 78.6 and 61.3 %; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy function: 88.5 and 70.0 %; intensity-modulated radiotherapy function: 51.6 and 25.3 %; annual number of patients per linear accelerator: 301.3 and 185.2; Ir-192 remote-controlled after-loading systems: 31.8 and 4.2 %; and average number of full-time equivalent radiation oncologists per facility: 1.8 and 0.8. Compared with the previous survey, the ownership ratio of equipment and personnel improved in both designated cancer care hospitals and the other radiotherapy facilities. Annual patient loads per full-time equivalent radiation oncologist in the designated cancer care hospitals and the other radiotherapy facilities were 225.5 and 247.6, respectively. These values exceeded the standard guidelines level of 200.CONCLUSIONS: The structure of radiation oncology in designated Japanese cancer care hospitals was more mature than that in the other radiotherapy facilities. There is still a shortage of personnel. The serious understaffing problem in radiation oncology should be corrected in the future

Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology i n 2009 based on institutional atratification of the Patterns of Care Study

The ongoing structure of radiation oncology in Japan in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load and geographic distribution was evaluated in order to radiation identify and improve any deficiencies. A questionnaire-based national structure survey was conducted from March 2010 to January 2011 by the Japanese Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (JASTRO). These data were analyzed in terms of the institutional stratification of the Patterns of Care Study (PCS). The total numbers of new cancer patients and total of cancer patients (new and repeat) treated with radiation in 2009 were estimated at 201,000 and 240,000, respectively. The type and numbers of systems in actual use consisted of Linac (816), telecobalt (9), Gamma Knife (46), (60)Co remote afterloading system (RALS) (29) and (192)Ir RALS systems (130). The Linac systems used dual energy function for 586 (71.8%), 3DCRT for 663 (81.3%) and IMRT for 337 units (41.3%). There were 529 JASTRO-certified radiation oncologists (ROs), 939.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) ROs, 113.1 FTE medical physicists and 1836 FTE radiation therapists. The frequency of interstitial radiation therapy use for prostate and of intensity-modulated radiotherapy increased significantly. PCS stratification can clearly identify the maturity of structures based on their academic nature and caseload. Geographically, the more JASTRO-certified physicians there were in a given area, the more radiation therapy tended to be used for cancer patients. In conclusion, the Japanese structure has clearly improved during the past 19 years in terms of equipment and its use, although a shortage of manpower and variations in maturity disclosed by PCS stratification remained problematic in 2009

National medical care system may impede fostering of true specialization of radiation oncologists:study based on structure survey in japan

PURPOSE: To evaluate the actual work environment of radiation oncologists (ROs) in Japan in terms of working pattern, patient load, and quality of cancer care based on the relative time spent on patient care.METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2008, the Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology produced a questionnaire for a national structure survey of radiation oncology in 2007. Data for full-time ROs were crosschecked with data for part-time ROs by using their identification data. Data of 954 ROs were analyzed. The relative practice index for patients was calculated as the relative value of care time per patient on the basis of Japanese Blue Book guidelines (200 patients per RO).RESULTS: The working patterns of RO varied widely among facility categories. ROs working mainly at university hospitals treated 189.2 patients per year on average, with those working in university hospitals and their affiliated facilities treating 249.1 and those working in university hospitals only treating 144.0 patients per year on average. The corresponding data were 256.6 for cancer centers and 176.6 for other facilities. Geographically, the mean annual number of patients per RO per quarter was significantly associated with population size, varying from 143.1 to 203.4 (p < 0.0001). There were also significant differences in the average practice index for patients by ROs working mainly in university hospitals between those in main and affiliated facilities (1.07 vs 0.71: p < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONS: ROs working in university hospitals and their affiliated facilities treated more patients than the other ROs. In terms of patient care time only, the quality of cancer care in affiliated facilities might be worse than that in university hospitals. Under the current national medical system, working patterns of ROs of academic facilities in Japan appear to be problematic for fostering true specialization of radiation oncologists