PURPOSE: To analyze the recent citation trend and to find a way to improve impact factor (IF) of the Journal of Korean Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (JKSTRO) by analysis of Korean Medical Citation Index (KoMCI) citation data of JKSTRO and comparison with that of mean citation data of all journals enlisted on KoMCI (KoMCI journals) during 2000-2005. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All citation data of entire journals enlisted on KoMCI and JKSTRO from 2000 to 2005 were obtained from KoMCI. The trend of total and annual number of published articles and reference citations, total citations and self-citations per paper, IF and impact factor excluding self-citations (ZIF) were described and compared on both KoMCI journals and JKSTRO. RESULTS: Annual number of published articles was decreased for 6 years on both KoMCI journals and JKSTRO (32% and 38% reduction rate). The number of Korean journal references per article is 1.6 papers on JKSTRO comparing to 2.0 papers on KoMCI journals. The percentage of Korean references/total references increased from 5.0% in 2000 to 7.7% in 2005 on JKSTRO and from 8.5% in 2000 to 10.1% on KoMCI journals. The number of total citations received/paper on JKSTRO (average 1.333) is smaller than that of KoMCI journals (average 1.694), there was an increased rate of 67% in 2005 comparing to 2000. The percentage of self-citations/total citations (average 72%) on JKSTRO is slightly higher than that of KoMCI journals (average 61%). IF of JKSTRO was gradually improved and 0.144, 0.125, 0.088, 0.107, 0.187, and 0.203 in 2000-2005 respectively. However, ZIF of JKSTRO is steadily decreased from 0.038 in 2000 to 0.013 in 2005 except 0.044 in 2004. CONCLUSION: IF of JKSTRO was slightly improved but had some innate problem of smaller number of citations received. To make JKSTRO as a highly cited journal, the awareness of academic status of JKSTRO and active participation of every member of JKSTRO including encouraging self-citations of papers published recent 2 years and submission of English written papers, and active academic cooperation with related academic societies.
Radiation Oncology*

No abstract available.
Radiation Oncology*

No abstract available.
Radiation Oncology*

Background: To respond to the pandemic, many societies, including the American Society for Radiation Therapy (ASTRO), the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Philippine Radiation Oncology Society (PROS), recommended guidelines to allow for continued safe delivery of oncologic services. Yet, the delivery of radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a challenge. Objective: To describe the situation of radiotherapy delivery in Metro Manila (NCR) during the COVID-19-related quarantine. Specifically, the objectives were to determine: (1) how the radiotherapy providers implemented the recommended changes, (2) if these implemented changes allowed the hospitals to operate with pre-COVID capacities, and (3) the causative factors of treatment interruptions if these were present. Additionally, in the face of treatment interruptions, the authors sought to put forth recommendations to decrease treatment interruptions. Methods: Investigators gathered data on the prevailing situation of RT services in their respective institutions during the strictest period of quarantine — Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ). Patients aged 18-70 years old who missed at least one fraction during the ECQ from March 16 – April 15, 2020, were invited to participate in a phone survey to determine factors contributing to treatment interruptions. Results: All the institutions implemented global recommendations to adapt to the pandemic, including infection control measures, telemedicine, and modification of RT plans. Despite this, most institutions had increased treatment interruptions during ECQ. The percentage of patients with interruptions was also much higher during the ECQ (66.37%) than during the pre-COVID month (30.56%). Among 142 patients unable to continue treatment, there were no significant differences in demographic variable and oncologic profile rates. The majority were more worried about getting COVID-19 than missing RT. The most common factor for treatment interruptions was transportation, followed by fear of getting COVID-19. Conclusion Compliance with global recommendations is not enough to ensure that the patients who require radiotherapy will receive it. Based on institutional and patient results, the causative factors of interruptions included suspension of services, lack of transportation, and anxiety of patients and staff. Especially in low-resource settings, recommendations are to use available resources as efficiently as possible by having an organized referral system, providing transportation or nearby accommodation for patients and staff, and communicating effectively to reassure patients that radiotherapy can be continued safely.
radiotherapy ; radiation therapy ; radiation oncology

PURPOSE: To evaluate the structural characteristics of a scientific network of radiation oncology society. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,512 articles published from 1986 to April 2010 with the terms 'radiation oncology' or 'therapeutic radiology' were obtained in the KoreaMed database. The co-authors were analyzed according to their affiliation, and their relationship was used to build a matrix. With the matrix, centralization indices and the Key Player index were analyzed. We used UCINET 6.0 for the network analysis, Netdraw for determining a sociogram and Key Player 1.44 for the key player analysis. RESULTS: The centralization of the radiation oncology field decreased from 8.29% for the period from 1986~1990 to 1.84% from 2006~2010. However, when the Korean Journal of Medical Physics was excluded, centralization increased from 2.32% for the period from 2001~2005 to 3.80% from 2006~2010. This suggested that the communication in the clinical research field of radiation oncology is decreasing. In a node centralization analysis, Seoul National University was found to be the highest at 7.9%. Seoul National University showed the highest indices in the Outdegree (6.50%) and Indegree (8.54%), in addition to Betweenness (14.94%) and Eigenvector (135.234%). The Key Player analysis indicated that Inha University had the highest index at 0.491, but when the Korean Journal of Medical Physics was excluded, Yonsei University had the highest Key Player index at 0.584. CONCLUSION: The degree centrality in the network of radiation oncology decreased in the most recent period as more institutions are participating in network. However, the Betweenness centrality is still increasing, suggesting that the communications among research groups (clique) in radiation oncology is warranted.
Korea ; Radiation Oncology

No abstract available.
Korea* ; Radiation Oncology*

As the radiotherapy technique development, the needs for using of medical electronic chart in the department of radiation oncology is growing. However, the complexity of affairs of radiation oncology make it difficult to develop a electronic medical chart. In this study, we introduce the electronic medical chart developed by domestic hospital. The function and example of electronic medical chart designed as radiation treatment progress was showed and the future study was presented.
Electronics ; Electrons ; Radiation Oncology

As the radiotherapy technique development, the needs for using of medical electronic chart in the department of radiation oncology is growing. However, the complexity of affairs of radiation oncology make it difficult to develop a electronic medical chart. In this study, we introduce the electronic medical chart developed by domestic hospital. The function and example of electronic medical chart designed as radiation treatment progress was showed and the future study was presented.
Electronics ; Electrons ; Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE: This research aimed to analyze the patterns of co-authorship network among the Korean radiation oncologists and to identify attributing factors for the formation of networks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,447 articles including contents of 'Radiation Oncology' and 'Therapeutic Radiology' were searched from the KoreaMed database. The co-authorship was assorted by the author's full name, affiliation and specialties. UCINET 6.0 was used to figure out the author's network centrality and the cluster analysis, and KeyPlayer 1.44 program was used to get a result of key player index. Sociogram was analyzed with the Netdraw 2.090. The statistical comparison was performed by a t-test and ANOVA using SPSS 16.0 with p-value < 0.05 as the significant value. RESULTS: The number of articles written by a radiation oncologist as the first author was 1,025 out of 1,447. The pattern of co-authorship was classified into five groups. For articles of which the first author was a radiation oncologist, the number of single-author articles (type-A) was 81; single-institution articles (type-B) was 687; and multiple-author articles (type-C) was 257. For the articles which radiation oncologists participated in as a co-author, the number of single-institution articles (type-D) was 280 while multiple-institution articles (type-E) were 142. There were 8,895 authors from 1,366 co-authored articles, thus the average number of authors per article was 6.51. It was 5.73 for type-B, 6.44 for type-C, 7.90 for type-D, and 7.67 for type-E (p = 0.000) in the average number of authors per article. The number of authors for articles from the hospitals published more than 100 articles was 7.23 while form others was 5.94 (p = 0.005). Its number was 5.94 and 7.16 for the articles published before and after 2001 (p = 0.000). The articles written by a radiation oncologist as the first author had 5.92 authors while others for 7.82 (p = 0.025). Its number was 5.57 and 7.71 for the Journal of the Korean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and others (p = 0.000), respectively. Among the analysis, a significant difference in the average number of author per article was indicated. The out-degree centrality of network among authors was 4.26% (2.03.7.09%) while in-degree centrality was 1.31% (0.53.2.84%). The three significant nodes were classified and listed as following: Choi, Eun Kyung for 1991-1995, Kim, Dae Young for 1998-2001, Park, Won and Lee, Sang Wook for 2003-2010. Choi, Eun Kyung and Kim, Dae Young appeared in two cases, and ranked as the highest degree in centrality. In the key player analysis, Choi, Eun Kyung and Lee, Sang Wook appeared in two cases, and ranked as the highest. From the cluster analysis, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul National University and Yonsei University revealed as the three large clusters when Ulsan University, Chonnam National University, and Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Science as the medium clusters. CONCLUSION: The Korean radiation oncologist's society shows a closed network with numerous relationships among the particular clusters, and the result indicates it is different from other institutions in the pattern of co-authorship formation of the major hospitals.
Korea ; Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE: To investigate current status of SCI (Science Citation Index) and SCI Expanded publications of Korean radiation oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published SCI and SCIE articles the conditions of first author's address as "Korea" and "Radiation Oncology" or "Therapeutic Radiology" were searched from Pubmed database. RESULTS: From 1990 to 2006, 146 SCI articles and 32 SCIE articles were published. Most frequently published journal was International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, where 56 articles were found. Articles with 30 or more citations were only five and 10 or more citations were 26. Yonsei University, which had 57 published articles, was the top among 19 affiliations which had one or more SCI and SCIE articles. Authors with five or more articles were 9 and Seong J. of Yonsei University was the top with 19 articles. CONCLUSION: The investigations showed disappointing results. The members of Korean Society of Radiation Oncologists must consider a strategy to increase SCI and SCIE publications.
Biology ; Korea* ; Radiation Oncology*