Mark H Phillips1, Clay Holdsworth. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, P.O. Box 356043, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA. markp@u.washington.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the most informative methods for reporting results of treatment planning comparisons. METHODS: Seven articles from the past year of International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics reported on comparisons of treatment plans for IMRT and IMAT. The articles were reviewed to identify methods of comparisons. Decision theoretical concepts were used to evaluate the study methods and highlight those that provide the most information. RESULTS: None of the studies examined the correlation between objectives. Statistical comparisons provided some information but not enough to provide support for a robust decision analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The increased use of treatment planning studies to evaluate different methods in radiation therapy requires improved standards for designing the studies and reporting the results.
PURPOSE: To identify the most informative methods for reporting results of treatment planning comparisons. METHODS: Seven articles from the past year of International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics reported on comparisons of treatment plans for IMRT and IMAT. The articles were reviewed to identify methods of comparisons. Decision theoretical concepts were used to evaluate the study methods and highlight those that provide the most information. RESULTS: None of the studies examined the correlation between objectives. Statistical comparisons provided some information but not enough to provide support for a robust decision analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The increased use of treatment planning studies to evaluate different methods in radiation therapy requires improved standards for designing the studies and reporting the results.
Authors: Carmen C Popescu; Ivo A Olivotto; Wayne A Beckham; Will Ansbacher; Sergei Zavgorodni; Richard Shaffer; Elaine S Wai; Karl Otto Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wilko F A R Verbakel; Johan P Cuijpers; Daan Hoffmans; Michael Bieker; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Harald Treuer; Moritz Hoevels; Klaus Luyken; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Jochen Wirths; Martin Kocher; Maximilian Ruge Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M Oliver; D McConnell; M Romani; A McAllister; A Pearce; A Andronowski; X Wang; K Leszczynski Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-07-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Harald Treuer; Moritz Hoevels; Klaus Luyken; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Jochen Wirths; Martin Kocher; Maximilian Ruge Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-11-22 Impact factor: 3.621