A JROD survey: nationwide overview of radiotherapy data from 2015 to 2021.

The purpose of this survey was to examine the status of radiotherapy in Japan based on the cases registered in the Japanese Radiation Oncology Database (JROD), from 2015 to 2021, and to provide basic data to help improve the usefulness of the JROD in the future. The study population consisted of patients who underwent radiotherapy between 2014 and 2020 and did not opt out of the study. The survey item data analyzed in this study were entered into the database at each radiotherapy institution by referring to medical records from the preceding year. Our results show that the number of registered radiotherapy institutions and cases increased by ~50% in 2019 compared to those in 2015 (to 113 institutions and 60 575 cases, respectively). Among the survey item categories, the registration rate was lowest for prognostic information (13.9% on average over the 7-year period). In terms of the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology disease site, the breast; lung, trachea and mediastinum and urogenital sites accounted for >50% of the total cases. The average survival and mortality rates over the 7-year study period were 67.4 and 17.4%, respectively. The X-ray radiotherapy completion rate exceeded 90% for all years and across all disease categories. 192Ir-based brachytherapy and 223Ra-based radionuclide therapy accounted for an average of 61.9 and 44.6%, respectively, of all corresponding cases over the 7-year period. In conclusion, this survey enables us to infer the actual status of radiotherapy in Japan based on the analysis of relevant nationwide data.

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.

AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION OF CT RADIATION DOSE DATA: USING THE DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVEL FOR RADIATION DOSE OPTIMIZATION.

The present work describes that we try to construct a system that collects dose information that performed CT examination from multiple facilities and unified management. The results of analysis are compared with other National diagnostic reference level (DRL), and the results are fed back to each facility and the cause of the abnormal value is investigated for dose optimization. Medical information collected 139 144 tests from 33 CT devices in 13 facilities. Although the DRL of this study is lower than that of Japan DRL, it was higher than the DRL of each country. When collecting all the examination, it is thought that the variation of the dose due to the error other than the intended imaging site is large. In future, we should continue to collect information in order to DRL renewal and we also think that it is desirable to collect information on physique and detailed scan region as well.