In Regard to Brown and Adler

Abstract

To the Editor: Drs Brown and Adler hypothesize that radiation oncology equipment development is stifling innovation by focusing on the development of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and not radiation biology–based treatment modifiers ( 1 Brown J.M. Adler Jr., J.R. Is equipment development stifling innovation in radiation oncology?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 92: 713-714 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar ). Their proposed solution is to have equipment manufacturers sponsor clinical trials with radiation sensitizers—a “holistic ‘full service’ approach to cancer therapy”—because drug companies and cooperative groups are not interested in funding such research. As a radiation oncologist who has held senior positions in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, such a perspective is shortsighted, neglecting the clinical benefits of stereotactic body radiation therapy and other technologic advances, and suggesting that equipment manufacturers will invest in opportunities from which they will see little return. Is Equipment Development Stifling Innovation in Radiation Oncology?International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, PhysicsVol. 92Issue 4PreviewToday, more than 60% of cancer patients get radiation therapy at some point in their treatment, and according to Professor Sir Mike Richards, the United Kingdom cancer “czar,” 40% of cancer cures are due to radiation therapy, whereas only 11% are attributable to chemotherapy. Despite this, the importance of radiation therapy in cancer treatment is not reflected in the clinical trials being conducted in the United States. Of the 200 featured clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute, only 11 involve any radiation therapy, and of these only 2 involve any agent suggested as a modifier of the radiosensitivity of the tumor or surrounding normal tissue. Full-Text PDF In Reply to Rudoltz and Goldwein et alInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, PhysicsVol. 93Issue 4PreviewTo the Editor: We appreciate the responses to our Commentary (1-3) and are delighted that it has stimulated this debate. Given our mutual interests in advancing the efficacy and promoting the field of radiation oncology, we believe this discussion is healthy. First, to clarify our position, which may have been misunderstood, we do not wish to “neglect the clinical benefits of SBRT and other technological advances.” Quite the contrary: we agree that the technological advances made in the past 20 years have revolutionized radiation therapy via stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and provide the very basis for our current argument. Full-Text PDF