Practice Patterns For Oropharyngeal Cancer in Radiation Oncology Centers of Turkey

dc.contributor.authorKarakoyun-Celik, Omur
dc.contributor.authorAltun, Musa
dc.contributor.authorOlmezoglu, Ali
dc.contributor.authorBuyukpolat, Mustafa Yakup
dc.contributor.authorOzkok, Serdar
dc.contributor.authorAkmansu, Muge
dc.contributor.authorCengiz, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorOnal, Cem
dc.contributor.authorDizman, Aysen
dc.contributor.authorEsassolak, Mustafa
dc.contributor.orcIDhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2742-9021en_US
dc.contributor.pubmedID25076239en_US
dc.contributor.researcherIDHOC-5611-2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-05T13:06:47Z
dc.date.available2023-12-05T13:06:47Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.description.abstractAims and background. The aim of the study was to review the current clinical practices of radiation oncologists involved in the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer. Methods and study design. The daily practices of radiation oncology centers for patients diagnosed with oropharyngeal cancer in 2010 were evaluated by a two-part questionnaire that separately assessed the information of the participating center and the charts of the treated patients. Results. A total of 22 centers participated in the study, and 105 oropharyngeal cancer patients reported for our review. The use of positron emission tomography was a common practice in staging and radiotherapy planning. Multidisciplinary head and neck cancer clinics were available in 14 (64%) centers and were absent in 8 centers. Thirty-six of the 105 patients were not evaluated by a multidisciplinary clinic before the initiation of therapy, and adjuvant radiotherapy administration was found to be higher in this group. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement was not a routine practice in any of the centers. Seventy-five patients received chemotherapy 46 concurrently with radiotherapy and 29 as induction chemotherapy. Two centers administered conventional radiotherapy alone, 20 centers conformal radiotherapy, and 7 centers were able to provide intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Conclusions. Across all the centers there were small differences in the pretreatment evaluation of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. The greatest difference was in the technical delivery of radiation, with most of the centers using conformal radiotherapy despite the increasing availability of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The use of chemotherapy has more readily adopted the current international standards in the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage288en_US
dc.identifier.issn0300-8916en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage284en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/10984
dc.identifier.volume100en_US
dc.identifier.wos000348335100009en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1177/1578.17204en_US
dc.relation.journalTUMORI JOURNALen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergien_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectoropharyngeal canceren_US
dc.subjectpatterns of careen_US
dc.subjectpractice patternen_US
dc.subjectradiation oncologyen_US
dc.subjectradiotherapyen_US
dc.titlePractice Patterns For Oropharyngeal Cancer in Radiation Oncology Centers of Turkeyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US

Files

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: