Premium
Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and the Internet
Author(s) -
Schomas David A.,
Milano Michael T.,
Roeske John C.,
Mell Loren K.,
Mundt Arno J.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/cncr.20359
Subject(s) - medicine , head and neck , radiation therapy , medical physics , the internet , quality (philosophy) , radiation oncology , intensity (physics) , presentation (obstetrics) , radiology , surgery , computer science , world wide web , epistemology , quantum mechanics , philosophy , physics
BACKGROUND The objective of the current study was to evaluate the content and quality of patient‐oriented information regarding intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on the Internet. METHODS IMRT websites were identified by reviewing the first 50 uniform resource locators on 5 search engines using the search terms IMRT and intensity modulated radiation therapy . Each site was evaluated by three observers for informational content, presentation, accuracy, and balance. A score of low, moderate, or high was assigned to each category based on a predefined scoring system. An overall score was assigned to each site, ranging from −35 to 100 points. RESULTS Seventy‐seven patient‐oriented IMRT websites were identified (45% private, 21% academic, and 18% commercial). Most sites (58%) had a low level of informational content, with information on fundamental aspects of IMRT planning (target delineation and inverse planning) appearing on < 50% of sites. The most commonly discussed tumors were genitourinary (65%) and head and neck (53%) lesions. Few sites, however, described the potential benefits of IMRT (toxicity and tumor control). Most sites (82%) used patient‐appropriate language. False and/or misleading information was seen on 42% of sites and was equally common on academic, private, and commercial sites. Balance statements were present on 24% of sites (most of which were commercial). The median overall score was 20 points (range, −25 to 70 points). The median overall scores for academic, private, commercial, and other sites were 10, 20, 25, and 20 points, respectively ( P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS In general, the content and quality of patient‐oriented information regarding IMRT on the Internet were poor. Patients and their physicians need to be aware of these problems when selecting treatment courses. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.