Current status of brachytherapy in Korea: A national survey of radiation oncologists

Haeyoung Kim, Joo Young Kim, Juree Kim, Won Park, Young Seok Kim, Hak Jae Kim, Yong Bae Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present study was to acquire information on brachytherapy resources in Korea through a national survey of radiation oncologists. Methods: Between October 2014 and January 2015, a questionnaire on the current status of brachytherapy was distributed to all 86 radiation oncology departments in Korea. The questionnaire was divided into sections querying general information on human resources, brachytherapy equipment, and suggestions for future directions of brachytherapy policy in Korea. Results: The response rate of the survey was 88.3%. The average number of radiation oncologists per center was 2.3. At the time of survey, 28 centers (36.8%) provided brachytherapy to patients. Among the 28 brachytherapy centers, 15 (53.5%) were located in in the capital Seoul and its surrounding metropolitan areas. All brachytherapy centers had a high-dose rate system using 192 Ir (26 centers) or 60 Co (two centers). Among the 26 centers using 192 Ir sources, 11 treated fewer than 40 patients per year. In the two centers using 60 Co sources, the number of patients per year was 16 and 120, respectively. The most frequently cited difficulties in performing brachytherapy were cost related. A total of 21 centers had a plan to sustain the current brachytherapy system, and four centers noted plans to upgrade their brachytherapy system. Two centers stated that they were considering discontinuation of brachytherapy due to cost burdens of radioisotope source replacement. Conclusion: The present study illustrated the current status of brachytherapy in Korea. Financial difficulties were the major barriers to the practice of brachytherapy.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere33
JournalJournal of Gynecologic Oncology
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Jul

Fingerprint

Brachytherapy
Korea
Radiation Oncologists
Surveys and Questionnaires
Costs and Cost Analysis
Radiation Oncology
Radioisotopes
Economics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oncology
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this

Kim, Haeyoung ; Kim, Joo Young ; Kim, Juree ; Park, Won ; Kim, Young Seok ; Kim, Hak Jae ; Kim, Yong Bae. / Current status of brachytherapy in Korea : A national survey of radiation oncologists. In: Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2016 ; Vol. 27, No. 4.
@article{5bcb2453c0b44857a6ab99c533ae0b9c,
title = "Current status of brachytherapy in Korea: A national survey of radiation oncologists",
abstract = "Objective: The aim of the present study was to acquire information on brachytherapy resources in Korea through a national survey of radiation oncologists. Methods: Between October 2014 and January 2015, a questionnaire on the current status of brachytherapy was distributed to all 86 radiation oncology departments in Korea. The questionnaire was divided into sections querying general information on human resources, brachytherapy equipment, and suggestions for future directions of brachytherapy policy in Korea. Results: The response rate of the survey was 88.3{\%}. The average number of radiation oncologists per center was 2.3. At the time of survey, 28 centers (36.8{\%}) provided brachytherapy to patients. Among the 28 brachytherapy centers, 15 (53.5{\%}) were located in in the capital Seoul and its surrounding metropolitan areas. All brachytherapy centers had a high-dose rate system using 192 Ir (26 centers) or 60 Co (two centers). Among the 26 centers using 192 Ir sources, 11 treated fewer than 40 patients per year. In the two centers using 60 Co sources, the number of patients per year was 16 and 120, respectively. The most frequently cited difficulties in performing brachytherapy were cost related. A total of 21 centers had a plan to sustain the current brachytherapy system, and four centers noted plans to upgrade their brachytherapy system. Two centers stated that they were considering discontinuation of brachytherapy due to cost burdens of radioisotope source replacement. Conclusion: The present study illustrated the current status of brachytherapy in Korea. Financial difficulties were the major barriers to the practice of brachytherapy.",
author = "Haeyoung Kim and Kim, {Joo Young} and Juree Kim and Won Park and Kim, {Young Seok} and Kim, {Hak Jae} and Kim, {Yong Bae}",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
doi = "10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e33",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
journal = "Journal of Gynecologic Oncology",
issn = "2005-0380",
publisher = "Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology and Colposcopy",
number = "4",

}

Current status of brachytherapy in Korea : A national survey of radiation oncologists. / Kim, Haeyoung; Kim, Joo Young; Kim, Juree; Park, Won; Kim, Young Seok; Kim, Hak Jae; Kim, Yong Bae.

In: Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 27, No. 4, e33, 07.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current status of brachytherapy in Korea

T2 - A national survey of radiation oncologists

AU - Kim, Haeyoung

AU - Kim, Joo Young

AU - Kim, Juree

AU - Park, Won

AU - Kim, Young Seok

AU - Kim, Hak Jae

AU - Kim, Yong Bae

PY - 2016/7

Y1 - 2016/7

N2 - Objective: The aim of the present study was to acquire information on brachytherapy resources in Korea through a national survey of radiation oncologists. Methods: Between October 2014 and January 2015, a questionnaire on the current status of brachytherapy was distributed to all 86 radiation oncology departments in Korea. The questionnaire was divided into sections querying general information on human resources, brachytherapy equipment, and suggestions for future directions of brachytherapy policy in Korea. Results: The response rate of the survey was 88.3%. The average number of radiation oncologists per center was 2.3. At the time of survey, 28 centers (36.8%) provided brachytherapy to patients. Among the 28 brachytherapy centers, 15 (53.5%) were located in in the capital Seoul and its surrounding metropolitan areas. All brachytherapy centers had a high-dose rate system using 192 Ir (26 centers) or 60 Co (two centers). Among the 26 centers using 192 Ir sources, 11 treated fewer than 40 patients per year. In the two centers using 60 Co sources, the number of patients per year was 16 and 120, respectively. The most frequently cited difficulties in performing brachytherapy were cost related. A total of 21 centers had a plan to sustain the current brachytherapy system, and four centers noted plans to upgrade their brachytherapy system. Two centers stated that they were considering discontinuation of brachytherapy due to cost burdens of radioisotope source replacement. Conclusion: The present study illustrated the current status of brachytherapy in Korea. Financial difficulties were the major barriers to the practice of brachytherapy.

AB - Objective: The aim of the present study was to acquire information on brachytherapy resources in Korea through a national survey of radiation oncologists. Methods: Between October 2014 and January 2015, a questionnaire on the current status of brachytherapy was distributed to all 86 radiation oncology departments in Korea. The questionnaire was divided into sections querying general information on human resources, brachytherapy equipment, and suggestions for future directions of brachytherapy policy in Korea. Results: The response rate of the survey was 88.3%. The average number of radiation oncologists per center was 2.3. At the time of survey, 28 centers (36.8%) provided brachytherapy to patients. Among the 28 brachytherapy centers, 15 (53.5%) were located in in the capital Seoul and its surrounding metropolitan areas. All brachytherapy centers had a high-dose rate system using 192 Ir (26 centers) or 60 Co (two centers). Among the 26 centers using 192 Ir sources, 11 treated fewer than 40 patients per year. In the two centers using 60 Co sources, the number of patients per year was 16 and 120, respectively. The most frequently cited difficulties in performing brachytherapy were cost related. A total of 21 centers had a plan to sustain the current brachytherapy system, and four centers noted plans to upgrade their brachytherapy system. Two centers stated that they were considering discontinuation of brachytherapy due to cost burdens of radioisotope source replacement. Conclusion: The present study illustrated the current status of brachytherapy in Korea. Financial difficulties were the major barriers to the practice of brachytherapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84967152668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84967152668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e33

DO - 10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e33

M3 - Article

C2 - 27102244

AN - SCOPUS:84967152668

VL - 27

JO - Journal of Gynecologic Oncology

JF - Journal of Gynecologic Oncology

SN - 2005-0380

IS - 4

M1 - e33

ER -