Zoller 1

Article Analysis Part 1: Trade Magazine

After reviewing examples of articles from a trade magazine and a peer reviewed journal

many differences in the two became apparent. The website of Radiology Today was colorful

with advertisements scattered across the page with links to quick articles meant to grab the

readers attention. On the other hand, the research article from Radiation Oncology was more

organized with neatly divided subsections and data organized into tables and charts.1

Differences like these made it clear as to the disparities in the quality of information presented in

both resources. The first part of this analysis will focus on the trade magazine article titled

SBRT for Prostate Cancer by Beth W. Orenstein published on the Radiology Today website.

The following discussion will include a brief summary, its usefulness as a healthcare

professional, the accuracy of the information, and finally the articles strengths and weaknesses.

In her article, Orenstein focuses on the topic of treating limited stage prostate cancer with

a SBRT technique using a Cyberknife linear accelerator. The author demonstrates viewpoints

for advocates and critics of treating prostate cancer using the SBRT technique. Some of the

advantages she includes in her work are as follows: less total treatments than a standard course of

radiation, a smaller prescribed dose, and less healthy tissue irradiated. The author goes on to

include data from a study analyzing treatment outcomes using the SBRT procedure that indicates

disease free survival after 5 years is comparable to surgery or a standard course of radiation

therapy.2 The author also includes the arguments against using hypofractionation including the

point that doctors may be pushing using the Cyberknife for a common cancer diagnosis in order

to cover the cost of the machine. Opponents also say that 5 years of data is not enough time to

accurately make a statement on long term treatment outcomes.2

 Zoller 2

As a dosimetry student the information presented in this article was interesting, however

it was not useful to me clinically. The author only displayed opposing viewpoints on the matter

and included many quotations from people portrayed to be experts. There was not any

discussion about issues such as health benefits to the patient from reducing the amount of healthy

tissue irradiated. The reason the article sparked my attention was that the James Cancer Hospital

is in the process of implementing SBRT for prostate cancer, and this may be something that

impacts my career in the near future.

With the sources of information included in the article, the accuracy of the information

presented comes into question. First, the author is stated to be a freelance medical writer and has

no credentials listed in her title. This poses concerns that she may not be the most qualified

person to write on this topic. In addition, there was a heavy amount of quoted material in the

article. This made the information appear very opinion based rather than factual. Finally, the

main supporter of using SBRT that was quoted in the article was a doctor with vast experience

treating patients on a Cyberknife unit. This raises questions about whether this person is

advocating prostate SBRT in order to justify the use of Cyberknife.

Finally, the article by Orenstein had some strengths but mostly weaknesses. The main

strength of the article was that it was written in a non-technical language that was easy to

understand.1 This would be useful for someone that did not have much knowledge in radiation

oncology and was looking for a knowledge base. The main weakness is that the article is more

opinion based rather than fact. There was not much information pertaining to how use of SBRT

for prostate cancer would benefit patients and by how much.

 Zoller 3

Overall, the trade magazine article was stimulating but solely because using SBRT for

limited stage prostate cancer may be impacting me in the near future. The author did a decent

job of portraying positives and negatives, however there was no argument based on fact as to

whether treating prostate cancer with SBRT is a better option for patients.
 Zoller 4

Sources

1. Lenards N, Weege M. Reading and Writing in Radiation Therapy & Medical Dosimetry.

[SoftChalk]. La Crosse, WI: UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program; 2016.

2. Orenstein, BW. (2011, July). SBRT for Prostate Cancer. Radiology Today, (12)7,24.

Retrieved from http://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt0711p24.shtml.

 Zoller 5

Article Analysis Part 2: Professional Journal

In order to further compare the two different types of articles in this analysis, I chose to

use a research article from the journal Radiation Oncology that covered the topic of prostate

SBRT. There was a major contrast in the style of writing with this type of article being much

more focused on a single topic; using a formal style of writing as compared to the trade

magazine. It was clear to see that this style of writing is meant to report research to an audience

of ones peers in order to be critiqued.1 The following analysis will go into more detail about the

scope of the paper, the methods used for research, the results achieved, and my overall

impression of the article.

The research article Toxicity and quality of life report of a phase II study for SBRT for

low and intermediate risk prostate cancer authored by Boyer et al sought to examine acute and

late gastrourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities and quality of life for patients treated

using an SBRT technique.2 The authors did an adequate job of reviewing the literature and

providing a background as to why they were researching this topic. Boyer et al stated that

standard courses of radiation therapy for prostate cancer tend to have adverse side effects along

with lengthy courses of treatments. In addition, previous research has shown that slowly

dividing cells with small / ratios are more sensitive to hypofractionation.2 This justified the

use of hypofactionation in analyzing patient side effects.

The methods section of the research went into great detail covering eligibility criteria,

treatment planning, radiation delivery, toxicity and quality of life assessment, and statistical

methods used. The study recruited 60 patients across three different treatment centers with stage

T1c-T2b prostate cancer that had received no prior treatment. These patients received 37 Gy in 5
 Zoller 6

fractions treated every other day with treatments being planned to cover greater than 95% of the

PTV using IMRT. Stereotactic alignment was achieved by using Calypso beacons or fiducial

markers. GU and GI toxicity and quality of life was assessed prior to treatment and again at 1, 3,

6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months at follow up visits.2

Following the discussion of the methods, the authors provided the results of their study.

The data was also given in tables along with box and whisker plots in order to help the reader

understand the results. Boyer et al reported that no grade 3 or greater acute or late GU symptoms

were observed. As for GI toxicity, only one grade 3 late GI symptom was noted. Following the

study, quality of life scores were reported to have little change from baseline when using

AUASS, IIEF, or EPIC-26 scoring methods.2 Results of the study were compared to similar data

obtained by other sources and found to be very similar. From the results given, the authors

concluded that SBRT shows low rates of toxicity and limited change in quality of life which is

comparable to standard fractionation. The authors stated that longer observation is needed in

order to address the topic of disease control.2

My overall impression is that the study was quite useful in terms of the results obtained

and my future career as a dosimetrist. Boyer et al showed that SBRT is tolerable for limited

stage prostate patients and this data was confirmed by results of other studies. More patients

could be treated this way in order to greatly reduce the demand on the patient by reducing the

total number of fractions. On the other hand, Boyer et al included the toxicity results of many

other studies using similar fractionation patterns for prostate SBRT. This raised concerns about

the necessity to perform such research if it had been done multiple times before this research

study.
 Zoller 7

After comparing the two types of articles in this analysis it was easy to see the differences

in terms of both the appearance and the quality of information presented. The scope of the

article by Boyer et al was much more focused on observing side effects experienced by prostate

patients using the SBRT technique as opposed to the trade magazines journalistic style of

reporting positives and negatives of the treatment.1 The professional journal went a lot further in

terms of being useful in the field of radiation oncology as compared to providing a broad

overview as to the treatment.

 Zoller 8

Sources

1. Lenards N, Weege M. Reading and Writing in Radiation Therapy & Medical Dosimetry.

[SoftChalk]. La Crosse, WI: UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program; 2016.

2. Boyer MJ, Papagikos MA, Kiteley R. Toxicity and quality of life report of a phase II

study of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for low and intermediate risk prostate

cancer. Radiation Oncology. 2017;12:14. DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0758-8.