Pinned Tweet
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/
Was this one of the greatest ASTROs ever?
Lots of updates on the tables from this year’s event, also publication of ROADS & ROAM
GETUG P05
RTOG 0534 SPPORT
ALLIANCE 071801
Russia LDRT osteoarthritis
NRG CC009
STELLAR 2
MAVERICK
ARST 0531 & 1431
COPORT
RTOG 0815
ROADS
ROAM
NRG GU005
For now it looks like 40 Gy is the dose for SBRT prostate
Focal therapy with radiation: no anesthesia required!
RadOnc Tables retweeted
I’ve treated over 1,000 patients with low-dose radiation for benign musculoskeletal conditions. Effective this November, EviCore will classify the treatment as not medically necessary for nearly all of them.
Some context on how EviCore got here.
In 2019, EviCore’s own published criteria stated: “Policy: Radiation therapy is medically necessary” for plantar fasciitis and osteoarthritis, citing response rates near 80% with durability at 48 weeks. That position held through early 2026. The new guideline describes the same literature as a “paucity of evidence.” No reconciliation of the two positions has been published.
The cited sources don’t support the reversal either. The DEGRO guideline EviCore references recommends LDRT for refractory Kellgren 2–3 knee OA and grades plantar fasciitis radiotherapy at evidence level 1b, recommendation A. The 2024 VA evidence review found uncertainty on specific outcomes, not nonnecessity, and its literature search ended April 2023. The review is currently being updated as you are reading this.
Since that cutoff: a randomized, multicenter, sham-controlled trial presented at ASTRO 2025 showed 70% response with 3 Gy versus 42% with sham (p=0.014) in knee OA — the study design the earlier skepticism specifically called for. And the American Radium Society published multispecialty Appropriate Use Criteria, developed with rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons, defining when LDRT is and isn’t appropriate.
I’ve applied strict evidence standards in my own AUC work, including voting against favorable ratings when randomized controlled data was lacking. This isn’t a plea for blanket coverage. It’s a request for basic consistency: an evidence review should account for the strongest available trial, accurately represent its cited sources, and explain what changed.
The patients affected are refractory with failed conservative care, often not surgical candidates. Categorical noncoverage removes even individualized review for the exact population every cited guideline identifies as appropriate.
Comment and appeal pathways are open through the November effective date. Our societies are engaged. If you treat these patients, now is the time to document and submit.
RTOG 0539 molecular analysis
Four subtypes
Immunogenic and NF2wt respond best to radiation
Proliferative has poor response
Even some low risk were upgraded
But my pathologist tells me this testing isn’t available yet. Coming soon hopefully!
GOG 249 molecular analysis
Still no difference between VCB/C and WPRT on molecular analysis
p53 and dMMR have worse prognosis
POLEmut analysis in process
The grade 2-3 glioma sections have been totally redone to make the upfront results in line with WHO 2021
- Not just post hoc analysis, these are what are clinically relevant
- Friendly brain emojis 🧠 direct you to the subtypes
-TMZ vs PCV still unclear
-In cross trial comparisons, PCV seems better in LGG, but TMZ seems better in grade III
-Randomized trials pending
EORTC 22033 26033 low grade glioma TMZ vs RT
-No difference in OS or HRQOL. HRQOL more related to progression
✅ RT + TMZ preferred
-Results should also be applied to vorasidenib
-Age no longer a prognostic factor
-Authors used progression and symptoms as indications for treatment. Is anyone still using SATAN criteria? New mnemonic possible STAN
- Astrocytoma performed worse in the trial as expected, and had better response to radiation than TMZ
RadOnc Tables retweeted
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…
RadOnc Tables retweeted
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…
RadOnc Tables retweeted
It's time for #radoncs to get more words like this back into our vernacular. I promise, it's not that difficult. 😎
Comfort with terms like TOXICITY and failure to manage perceptions outside the basemenet are contributing to a "communication disaster", as illustrated by @Mat_Guc. REF: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3797…
cc @NehaVapiwala @sueyom
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












































