Talk:Radiation Oncology

This book was born on: September 8, 2004.

Instructions for Authors
See a list of standards for this wikibook.

Template Usage

 * Template for Table of Contents  
 * Prior versions used . The above version, which uses the Template namespace (Template/Radiation Oncology:TOC) is preferred.


 * Add link to edit a template
 * where page name is the module name alone without the name space, such that http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Radiation_Oncology:Introduction would be Introduction.
 * where text is the text you want to appear after the word Edit in the box, such as "Edit this", or "Edit Table of Contents"
 * &mdash;Brim 01:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Listing of templates
To see a list of templates used in the Radiation Oncology wiki, use this link.
 * Note: older templates used the naming scheme Radiation Oncology/subject:TOC or Radiation Oncology/subject/TOC. Not all have been moved to the Template namespace.

A partial listing of older templates is below:

Note: all are preceded by a colon, e.g.
 * Radiation Oncology:TOC - general table of contents header
 * Radiation Oncology:Colorectal_staging - common staging used for colon/rectum/small bowel
 * Radiation Oncology/Head & Neck/Node staging
 * Radiation Oncology/Head & Neck/Stage grouping

Sections with table of contents templates:
 * Radiation Oncology/Prostate:TOC - table of contents header for prostate
 * Radiation Oncology/Breast:TOC
 * Radiation Oncology/NHL:TOC - Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
 * Radiation Oncology/Hodgkin/TOC - Hodgkin's lymphoma
 * Radiation Oncology/Lung/NSCLC:TOC - Non-small cell lung
 * Radiation Oncology/Lung/SCLC:TOC - Small cell lung
 * Radiation Oncology/Thyroid:TOC - Thyroid

It's suggested that you add the link   to the top of a main page for a section (i.e. Prostate) that has subpages that use a table of contents template specific for that section. This will allow easy editing of the table of contents bar so it can be kept in sync with the section main page.

To make creating table of contents pages for subpages easier, you can copy fill-in-the-blank templates using the substitute command subst:.
 * For the main page for a section, use  
 * For the table of contents bar for a section, use  


 * Example:

Let's say you wanted to create a section called "Earlobe tumors" which was large enough that you needed multiple subpages.
 * 1) Create the page "Radiation Oncology/Earlobe tumors".
 * 2) Type   and save the page.
 * 3) Edit the page, replacing the ___INSERT TEXT HERE___ as appropriate, create the subsections that you would like, and save the page.
 * 4) Now edit the table of contents bar for this section (Radiation Oncology/Earlobe tumors:TOC), which you can do by following the link "edit the ___ table of contents bar."
 * 5) Type   and save the page.
 * 6) Edit the page.

Talk section
Brim,

Hope here.

Just wondering if you mind significant contributions... I already have a WikiWiki internally that has a large quantity of site-specific information, which I've been updating for ~1 year. It's not advertised and WikiBooks might be the way to go for a generalized resource. Any concerns about merging the two over time?

Also, what is the goal of this Wiki? Comprehensive text with everything (a la Perez) or more focused on specifics relating to evidence based treatment?

Hope


 * Hi Hope. Welcome aboard and thank you for your contributions so far to the Radiation Oncology Wikibook.

Ideally and eventually this should be a comprehensive text, but the main goal is ease of use. I'd rather the text be easy to read (bullet points) rather than have lengthy paragraphs, so in that regard it would be different from major print textbooks.

Really I see its main utility as being a repository of important radiation oncology articles, which would make it useful as a study guide for boards. I think it's important to give full citations for all articles mentioned. Now Wikipedia and Wikibooks both support links to PubMed by using the syntax  PMID 12829145  which produces the result PMID 12829145. I've been inconsistent with how I've been formatting articles, but you can look some of the chapters in the book to see in general how I've been formatting them. Once the book grows, there should probably be some policy on a recommended format.

In addition to listing the results of key articles, I would eventually like it to include treatment recommendations (i.e. how to treat advanced breast cancer) and radiation techniques (with pictures). I've also put Radiation Biology and Radiation Physics on the table of contents listing so that they may also be added at some time.

Since the project is still in its very early stages, how it develops exactly remains to be seen.

What I would definitely like to avoid is having it become like the oncology-related articles on Wikipedia which are written very simply in layman's terms and read like general interest newspaper articles. The scope of this text should be for the cancer specialist.

I would really welcome any contributions you can make to this project. It would be great to try to merge your previous WikiWiki work over to here. Just be careful about copyright since Wikibooks requires that its articles be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. In the spirit of Wiki, be bold and if you see a way that this book needs to be changed, go for it, or ask me on my talk page.

Once again, welcome. By the way, do you also contribute on Wikipedia?


 * &mdash;Brim 16:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Say hello to Kat for me.

---

I'll let Cat know you said hello.

Basically, it sounds like this wikiwiki is similar in many ways to the wikiwiki I already have going. I will probably start shifting some of the content over as I can. I'll probably maintain both for a while, just to see how this one goes.

I haven't submitted much to Wikipedia, mostly because nothing has really struck my fancy there.

I'm on Pediatrics right now, so I'll probably start with that for the next few articles.

Hope

---

I just noticed you (Brim) wrote "Really I see its main utility as being a repository of important radiation oncology articles, which would make it useful as a study guide for boards." To what depth should these pages go? Would you want to keep it to just randomized evidence if available, or major studies? Or to whatever depth one has interest of entering information? As an example, I have done a project looking at predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy, so I have somewhere all the studies that have developed predictive models. I could write it up as a subarticle. Or just add the 2-3 major prognostic models. Tdvorak 17:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the general rule should be that good quality articles (i.e. randomized control trials) are preferred, but that any article that is valuable or of historical interest can or should be included. Often, there are major important articles that are retrospective studies.  These may be followed then by data from randomized studies.  If a non-randomized article is important for historical reasons or otherwise, it should be included.   The main obstacle we should avoid is to have this wikibook get bogged down with too much information.  The wiki shouldn't be a list of "all articles about prostate cancer."  That would defeat its purpose of being an easy-to-use reference.  I guess for now, with the wiki being in its relatively early stages, it would be better to err on the side of including articles that you think are important.  Later, as the wiki grows, we may need to eliminate some redundant articles.  Since we're not limited by space as we would be in a print textbook, we may elect to just move less-important artices to subpages of the main article (i.e. a page called "other prostate articles") while keeping the important articles in easy-to-find places.  As for your idea about the predictive models after RP, there might be enough information for that all to go on its own page.  You could list the 2-3 major prognostic models at the top so they're easier to spot.  &mdash; Brim 02:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it a coincidence that the rad onc page seems to be the most comprehensive of any of the medical specialties on Wiki?
 * no, i think we have the most computer time during the work day

---

It seems that the Treatment Toxicity and the Supportive Care sections have a fair amount of overlap. I wonder what's the best way of handling it? I am thinking of combining them under each organ, and then having 3 sections - tolerance, acute toxicity & treatment, and long-term toxicity & treatment. --Tdvorak 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the treatment toxicity section should be concerned with the risks of radiation complications and treatment planning aspects. For instance, data on esophagitis, data on lung V20, genitourinary toxicity, rectal tolerance, etc.  It's more academic in scope, like the chapters on treatment.  On the other hand Supportive Care is more of a field guide on how to deal with toxicities when they occur: a listing of helpful medicines and treatments, etc., that you can turn to as a handy reference.  I think   the sections function better separately since they're not commonly used together; but it would be helpful to have hyperlinks between related section. Brim 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

ARRO list of key papers
Here's a useful link:
 * Key articles in radiation oncology

Wikibooks Statistics

 * Overall Wikibooks statistics
 * Statistics per Wikibook

Recognition
Publication References
 * EORTC; 2007 PMID 18065746 -- "Adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery for pathologically advanced prostate cancer." (Van der Kwast TH, J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 10;25(35):5671-2.)
 * Reference #8: link to Radiation_Oncology/Prostate/Randomized

Mentions of the Radiation Oncology wikibook in the media:

In the Wikibooks project, anybody can help write school textbooks by, say, augmenting the chapter on Saint Sava in "Serbian History" or the brachytherapy section in "Radiation Oncology."
 * January 9, 2006 - Newsweek article

On Wikibooks:
 * June 23, 2006 - Added to Hot picks list
 * May 9, 2008 - Featured Book

On the web:
 * Media Matrix website - 5 stars

Redesigned front page
It looks great. I've been on holiday, so haven't been able to see it. I'm very glad the book became featured; it's fantastic :). Regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am glad you suggested it. I have been thinking about reorganizing it for a while and this was a good impetus.