This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Radiation Therapy  • Health Policy  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their Commentary on peak petroleum, Dr Frumkin and colleagues¹ examined the implications of diminishing oil supplies on the health care system. They provided broad coverage of the issue without considering specific fields of medicine that could be particularly affected.

The field of radiation oncology is highly dependent on patient transportation; for many patients, this commute may be daily for more than 8 weeks. Increasing distance to the nearest radiation facility may bias a woman's choice between mastectomy and breast conservation toward the former.² A possible consequence of impending $5-per-gallon gasoline costs could be reluctance of patients to consider important adjuvant therapy such as radiation after lumpectomy. Shorter treatment options, such as partial-breast irradiation and stereotactic radiotherapy that can be given over the course of a week, are likely to find greater appeal for a population struggling to afford the extra co-pay of filling the tank.

Financial . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Alan T. Monroe, MD
alanmonroe@centura.org
Penrose Cancer Center
Colorado Springs, Colorado

RELATED LETTER

Gasoline Costs and Treatment Choices—Reply
Howard Frumkin, Jeremy Hess, and Stephen Vindigni
JAMA. 2008;299(4):408.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Peak Petroleum and Public Health
Howard Frumkin, Jeremy Hess, and Stephen Vindigni
JAMA. 2007;298(14):1688-1690.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT