Fuller 1

Browsing through both a trade magazine and a professional (peer-reviewed) journal, one

can see some common topics, themes, and subjects. However, the way the information is

presented by each is inherently different. Take for instance two seemingly similar articles, one

from the trade magazine Imaging Technology News and the other from the peer-reviewed journal

eCancerMedicalScience. Both were written on the topic of trends and advances in radiation

oncology, though that is where the similarities end. This discussion will contain an analysis of

both articles in two parts; Part 1 an analysis of the trade article and Part 2 an analysis of the

scholarly journal article. Each part will give a brief summary, an evaluation of the content

provided, as well as strengths and any weaknesses of the material.

Article Analysis Part 1: Trade Magazine Article

The article from the trade magazine, Imaging Technology News, was titled “Key

Technology Trends in Radiation Therapy at ASTRO 2018” and was authored by Dave Fornell

who is also the editor of the Diagnostic & Interventional Cardiology magazine and the assistant

editor for Imaging Technology News magazine.1 This article was written in a blog style format,

with structured paragraphs that were broken down into categories, yet lacked any abstract,

introduction, methods, results, discussion, or, conclusion.2 The article provided some valuable

information even though it was informal and not scientifically backed.

When first looking at the trade magazine article, it may be easy to become distracted by

the large amount of advertisements and product placements. Any area of a given page, not

dedicated to space for the article itself, had some sort of advertising on it. Within the article,

Fornell gave a few examples of some of the radiation oncology technology advancements seen at
 Fuller 2

the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting in October of 2018.1

Topics were covered in short one to three paragraph subsections which included artificial

intelligence (AI), improving radiation dose, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided therapy,

positron emission tomography (PET) guided therapy, advances in proton therapy, and tumor

tracking.

In Imaging Technology News, Fornell listed and described each topic in a way that was

geared toward a general audience, rather than an audience of professionals. This made the

subjects easy to understand and relatable. The information provided was interesting and could be

used as a basic starting point for research ideas. For example, in the subsection on AI, Fornell

talks about how technology is being developed to help automate treatment planning software and

cut the time it takes to develop plans from hours or days, down to minutes.1 Other than stating

the pertinent uses of AI in radiation therapy, the article is deficient in citing any relevant research

on the topic. This is also true of the other subsections of the article.

In general, Fornell did a great job at peaking the interest of the reader with new and

emerging topics important to the field of radiation therapy. The article was very thought-

provoking and could help the development of a student medical dosimetrist by giving an incite to

some technologies that may or may not be utilized at certain clinical locations. The accuracy of

the article is not questionable since it was written in the first person and was based off the

author’s induvial experience. Since the author is a staff writer, it means that he was probably

paid for his contribution. It is also unclear as to if the author was sponsored for indorsements of

new products covered in the article. The greatest strength to the trade article was its ease of use,

with its greatest weakness being the lack of supporting information on areas covered.
 Fuller 3

Article Analysis Part 2: Professional Journal Article

The article from the professional journal, eCancerMedicalScience, was titled “Recent

Advances in Radiation Oncology” and was authored by Garibaldi et al.3 This article was written

in a scholarly format, with structured sections and subsections to include the abstract,

introduction, radiation principles, technological advances, biological advances, conclusion, and

references.2 The article was well written, scientifically backed, and provided details for subjects

that were presented.

The implied problem, which Garibaldi et al presents in this article, is that technological

advances seem likely to reach a plateau in the near future and that focus needs to be on the

discoveries that have been made in terms of new technology and cancer biology.3 After giving a

brief background to the principles of radiotherapy, the article introduces technological advances

to the field in well defined subsections. These sections included in-depth information on intensity

modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), stereotactic body RT (SBRT), particle beam planning, tumor

localization, and biological advances in tumor targeting.3

A thorough background was provided within the introduction in which a literature review

and statistics were presented in order to show the importance of advancing technology and

techniques in radiation therapy. In this article, Garibaldi et al3 explained the importance of such

advances in technology by presenting data on high-precision RT techniques currently available

in clinical practice together with the fundamental prerequisites to accurately localize the target

volume during treatment planning and delivery. Finally, the article proved that there should be a

focus on personalized medicine.

 Fuller 4

The research design of this article was well defined and easy to follow. Garibaldi et al

wanted to show the importance of advancing technologies within the radiation oncology field

and used reliable sources to prove the discussion points made in each subsection. Instead of a

dedicated results section, this article provided reasoning behind each subject within its

corresponding subsection. In addition, the article provided results obtained from other studies

and credible sources to prove the reasoning behind the views stated within the text.

There does not appear to be any bias on part of the authors of this article because

information was taken from specialized trade/ professional products and references were from

professional journals and statistical methods.2 Information used in the article was gained through

research, formal scientific protocol, or original research. The eCancerMedicalScience article

should be considered professional and reliable because it is co-authored by ten-plus

professionals, peer-reviewed, and was written for a specific professional audience.2 This article

also offered cited recent sources when necessary and presented references when using statistical

methods and references from other journals or studies.

Overall, the professional journal article was better and more informative than the trade

magazine article because it communicated facts and information well, utilized a professional

body of knowledge, and will serves as a historical record of trends and technology at this

moment in time.1 The research was adequately summarized within both articles and proper

references were made to demonstrate new ideas. However, a wider range of sources were

consulted by the authors of the professional journal article. Although both articles contained

information on new technology, trends, and techniques within radiation therapy, the trade article

was sub-par in relation to the article from the peer-reviewed journal, which was made apparent

throughout this analysis.

 Fuller 5

1. Fornell, D. Key technology trends in radiation therapy at ASTRO 2018. Imaging

Technology News. 2018. Published 2019 Jan/Feb. Accessed February 4, 2019.

2. Lenards N, Weege M. Reading and writing in radiation therapy & medical dosimetry.

[SoftChalk]. La Crosse, WI: UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program; January 18, 2018.

3. Garibaldi C, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Marvaso G, et al. Recent advances in radiation

oncology. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:785. Published 2017 Nov 30.

doi:10.3332/ecancer.2017.785. Accessed February 4, 2019.