Bio

Dr. Chaudhari is a radiation oncologist with the Stanford Medicine Cancer Center and a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Stanford University School of Medicine.

In every case, he develops a comprehensive, compassionate care plan personalized to the unique needs of each patient. His goal is always to deliver innovative, compassionate care of the highest quality to help each patient achieve the best possible outcome.

Dr. Chaudhari conducts research into leading-edge treatments, allowing him to offer the most advanced care options. He has investigated stereotactic body radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer and for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. He has also studied the effects of radiotherapy on breast cancer stem cells and extramedullary plasmacytomas. He also is currently studying the use of proton beam therapy on recurrent head and neck cancers.

Dr. Chaudhari has presented his research findings at meetings of the Radiation Research Society, Society for Thermal Medicine, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and World Congress of Brachytherapy. He has published articles on radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer in the journal Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy. He also co-authored the chapter “Renal and Adrenal Vasculature: Anatomy and Imaging” in the textbook Image-Guided Interventions. He has served as a reviewer for Cancer Medicine.

In previous positions, Dr. Chaudhari served on committees dedicated to care quality assurance and to the monitoring of cancer care protocols. Other areas of interest include radiation oncology department operations and advising radiation oncology residents.

Dr. Chaudhari is a member of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Clinical Focus

  • Radiation Oncology

Academic Appointments

Administrative Appointments

  • Medical Director, Stanford Emanuel Radiation Oncology Center (2023 - 2025)
  • Medical Director, Stanford Medicine Sutter Health Radiation Oncology at Eden Medical Center (2025 - Present)

Professional Education

  • Board Certification: American Board of Radiology, Radiation Oncology (2021)
  • Residency, SUNY Upstate Medical University (2019)
  • Internship, University of Chicago NorthShore University HealthSystem (2015)
  • MD, George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences (2014)

Contact

  • Clinical (Primary)  Stanford Emanuel Radiation Oncology Ctr 880 E Tuolumne Rd Ste 101 Turlock, CA 95382 (209) 664-5037 (fax)

Additional Clinical Info

Additional Info

All Publications

  • Radiation Oncology Physician Workforce Concerns: A Snapshot from the 2025 ASTRO Annual Member Survey. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics Salama, J. K., Alam, M., Arnone, A., Bates, J. E., Bukata, B., Chen, E., Choi, J. I., Chaudhari, R., Chowdhary, M., Das, I., Jones, J., Liu, J., Reshko, L., Sim, A. J., Sittig, M., Weisman, M., Shah, C. 2026

    Abstract

    The US radiation oncology (RO) workforce comprises diverse physician populations working in varied geographic and clinical settings. Data related to concerns of specific non-mutually exclusive groups, including academically affiliated community providers (AACP), private practitioners (PP), physician-scientists (PS), and rural providers (RP) are sparse. The ASTRO Workforce Committee utilized the 2025 Member Survey to characterize these cohorts and identify their unique professional challenges.The 2025 ASTRO Member Survey included targeted questions for specific physician populations regarding practice roles, effort distribution (clinical, administrative, academic), funding, and their "top three" profession concerns. Responses were cross-referenced with demographic data from the survey for further context. Descriptive analysis was employed to summarize the qualitative and quantitative trends across subgroups.From 875 total responses, 433 members answered some workforce-related questions, including 100 AACP, 162 PP, 92 PS, and 68 RP radiation oncologists. AACPs reported a median clinical effort of 80%. AACP concerns included: time/funding for academics (41%), increasing administrative burdens (37%), decreasing reimbursement/increasing expenses (27%), staffing challenges (21%), and AMC support for research/clinic (14%). PP and RP reported a median clinical effort of 80% with 20% effort on administration/non-clinical work. PP concerns included: administrative and regulatory burdens (56%), decreased relative reimbursement (47%), challenges recruiting/maintaining staffing (21%), and maintaining/replacing equipment (14%). Physician scientists reported median clinical effort of 60%; 20% for basic/translational. Consistent PS concerns focused on the unstable research funding climate (85%), decreased protected time (48%), followed by challenges recruiting staff/trainees (12%). Representing subsets of the other 3 groups, RP concerns included barriers to timely specialty care, declining reimbursement and poor payor mix, along with administrative/clinical burdens.While administrative burden, staffing challenges, and reimbursement volatility were universal concerns across the US radiation oncology workforce, each physician subgroup faced specific pressures. AACP and PP struggle with the friction between clinical volume and non-clinical work. PS are primarily threatened by funding and time constraints. RP are additionally challenged by barriers to timely and optimal care. These findings provide a roadmap for ASTRO and practice leaders to develop targeted advocacy and support strategies to sustain a diverse and healthy workforce.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2026.07.053

    View details for PubMedID 42586219

  • Outcomes Following Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy with Intensity-Modulated Therapy versus Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy in Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer LUNG CANCER-TARGETS AND THERAPY Mix, M., Tanny, S., Nsouli, T., Alden, R., Chaudhari, R., Kincaid, R., Rosenbaum, P. F., Bogart, J. A., Aridgides, P. 2019; 10: 151-159

    Abstract

    The treatment techniques used for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage lung cancer continue to evolve. In this study, clinical outcomes following SBRT were evaluated according to the use of either 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).Patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT from 2007 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Disease control and survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Dosimetric analyses for target dose heterogeneity and coverage were performed.A total of 297 patients with 351 lesions were included. 3DCRT was used in 52% and IMRT in 48%. IMRT was utilized at a higher rate in more recent years. The most common regimens were 48 Gy in 4 fractions and 54-60 Gy in 3 fractions. With a median follow up of 22.7 months, there were 17 local failures for a crude relapse rate of 5.7%. Local failure did not differ in patients treated with 3DCRT and IMRT (4.9% vs 6.5%, p=0.573). Mean dose to gross tumor volume (GTV) as a percent of prescription dose was higher with 3DCRT compared with IMRT (107.7% vs 103.6%, p < 0.0001). Tumor stage, histology, and SBRT regimen did not correlate with local tumor control. Overall survival for the entire population approximated 72% at 2 years. Treatment was well tolerated with 6 documented grade 3+ events.In this single-institution cohort of SBRT for early-stage NSCLC, there was no discernible difference in clinical outcomes between those treated with 3DCRT and IMRT.

    View details for DOI 10.2147/LCTT.S235713

    View details for Web of Science ID 000504419300001

    View details for PubMedID 31908556

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6929968

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7230-5813