@article{GuckenbergerSweeneyFlickingeretal.2011,
  author    = {Guckenberger, Matthias and Sweeney, Reinhart A. and Flickinger, John C. and Gerszten, Peter C. and Kersh, Ronald and Sheehan, Jason and Sahgal, Arjun},
  title     = {Clinical practice of image-guided spine radiosurgery - results from an international research consortium},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  number    = {172},
  doi       = {10.1186/1748-717X-6-172},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-138006},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {Background Spinal radiosurgery is a quickly evolving technique in the radiotherapy and neurosurgical communities. However, the methods of spine radiosurgery have not been standardized. This article describes the results of a survey about the methods of spine radiosurgery at five international institutions. Methods All institutions are members of the Elekta Spine Radiosurgery Research Consortium and have a dedicated research and clinical focus on image-guided radiosurgery. The questionnaire consisted of 75 items covering all major steps of spine radiosurgery. Results Strong agreement in the methods of spine radiosurgery was observed. In particular, similarities were observed with safety and quality assurance playing an important role in the methods of all institutions, cooperation between neurosurgeons and radiation oncologists in case selection, dedicated imaging for target- and organ-at-risk delineation, application of proper safety margins for the target volume and organs-at-risk, conformal planning and precise image-guided treatment delivery, and close clinical and radiological follow-up. In contrast, three major areas of uncertainty and disagreement were identified: 1) Indications and contra-indications for spine radiosurgery; 2) treatment dose and fractionation and 3) tolerance dose of the spinal cord. Conclusions Results of this study reflect the current practice of spine radiosurgery in large academic centers. Despite close agreement was observed in many steps of spine radiosurgery, further research in form of retrospective and especially prospective studies is required to refine the details of spinal radiosurgery in terms of safety and efficacy.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GersztenSahgalSheehanetal.2013,
  author    = {Gerszten, Peter C. and Sahgal, Arjun and Sheehan, Jason P. and Kersh, Ronald and Chen, Stephanie and Flickinger, John C. and Quader, Mubina and Fahim, Daniel and Grills, Inga and Shin, John H. and Winey, Brian and Oh, Kevin and Sweeney, Reinhart A. and Guckenberger, Matthias},
  title     = {A multi-national report on methods for institutional credentialing for spine radiosurgery},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  number    = {158},
  doi       = {10.1186/1748-717X-8-158},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-131485},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Background: Stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiosurgery are rapidly emerging treatment options for both malignant and benign spine tumors. Proper institutional credentialing by physicians and medical physicists as well as other personnel is important for the safe and effective adoption of spine radiosurgery. This article describes the methods for institutional credentialing for spine radiosurgery at seven highly experienced international institutions. Methods: All institutions (n = 7) are members of the Elekta Spine Radiosurgery Research Consortium and have a dedicated research and clinical focus on image-guided spine radiosurgery. A questionnaire consisting of 24 items covering various aspects of institutional credentialing for spine radiosurgery was completed by all seven institutions. Results: Close agreement was observed in most aspects of spine radiosurgery credentialing at each institution. A formal credentialing process was believed to be important for the implementation of a new spine radiosurgery program, for patient safety and clinical outcomes. One institution has a written policy specific for spine radiosurgery credentialing, but all have an undocumented credentialing system in place. All institutions rely upon an in-house proctoring system for the training of both physicians and medical physicists. Four institutions require physicians and medical physicists to attend corporate sponsored training. Two of these 4 institutions also require attendance at a non-corporate sponsored academic society radiosurgery course. Corporate as well as non-corporate sponsored training were believed to be complimentary and both important for training. In 5 centers, all cases must be reviewed at a multidisciplinary conference prior to radiosurgery treatment. At 3 centers, neurosurgeons are not required to be involved in all cases if there is no evidence for instability or spinal cord compression. Backup physicians and physicists are required at only 1 institution, but all institutions have more than one specialist trained to perform spine radiosurgery. All centers believed that credentialing should also be device specific, and all believed that professional societies should formulate guidelines for institutions on the requirements for spine radiosurgery credentialing. Finally, in 4 institutions radiation therapists were required to attend corporate-sponsored device specific training for credentialing, and in only 1 institution were radiation therapists required to also attend academic society training for credentialing. Conclusions: This study represents the first multi-national report of the current practice of institutional credentialing for spine radiosurgery. Key methodologies for safe implementation and credentialing of spine radiosurgery have been identified. There is strong agreement among experienced centers that credentialing is an important component of the safe and effective implementation of a spine radiosurgery program.},
  language  = {en}
}