Kevin L Moore1, Rachel Schmidt2, Vitali Moiseenko3, Lindsey A Olsen4, Jun Tan4, Ying Xiao5, James Galvin5, Stephanie Pugh6, Michael J Seider7, Adam P Dicker5, Walter Bosch4, Jeff Michalski4, Sasa Mutic4. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: kevinmoore@ucsd.edu. 2. Department of Physics, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas. 3. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Akron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the frequency and clinical severity of quality deficiencies in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 219 IMRT patients from the high-dose arm (79.2 Gy) of RTOG 0126 were analyzed. To quantify plan quality, we used established knowledge-based methods for patient-specific dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction of organs at risk and a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model for grade ≥2 rectal complications to convert DVHs into normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). The LKB model was validated by fitting dose-response parameters relative to observed toxicities. The 90th percentile (22 of 219) of plans with the lowest excess risk (difference between clinical and model-predicted NTCP) were used to create a model for the presumed best practices in the protocol (pDVH0126,top10%). Applying the resultant model to the entire sample enabled comparisons between DVHs that patients could have received to DVHs they actually received. Excess risk quantified the clinical impact of suboptimal planning. Accuracy of pDVH predictions was validated by replanning 30 of 219 patients (13.7%), including equal numbers of presumed "high-quality," "low-quality," and randomly sampled plans. NTCP-predicted toxicities were compared to adverse events on protocol. RESULTS: Existing models showed that bladder-sparing variations were less prevalent than rectum quality variations and that increased rectal sparing was not correlated with target metrics (dose received by 98% and 2% of the PTV, respectively). Observed toxicities were consistent with current LKB parameters. Converting DVH and pDVH0126,top10% to rectal NTCPs, we observed 94 of 219 patients (42.9%) with ≥5% excess risk, 20 of 219 patients (9.1%) with ≥10% excess risk, and 2 of 219 patients (0.9%) with ≥15% excess risk. Replanning demonstrated the predicted NTCP reductions while maintaining the volume of the PTV receiving prescription dose. An equivalent sample of high-quality plans showed fewer toxicities than low-quality plans, 6 of 73 versus 10 of 73 respectively, although these differences were not significant (P=.21) due to insufficient statistical power in this retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Plan quality deficiencies in RTOG 0126 exposed patients to substantial excess risk for rectal complications.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the frequency and clinical severity of quality deficiencies in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 219 IMRT patients from the high-dose arm (79.2 Gy) of RTOG 0126 were analyzed. To quantify plan quality, we used established knowledge-based methods for patient-specific dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction of organs at risk and a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model for grade ≥2 rectal complications to convert DVHs into normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). The LKB model was validated by fitting dose-response parameters relative to observed toxicities. The 90th percentile (22 of 219) of plans with the lowest excess risk (difference between clinical and model-predicted NTCP) were used to create a model for the presumed best practices in the protocol (pDVH0126,top10%). Applying the resultant model to the entire sample enabled comparisons between DVHs that patients could have received to DVHs they actually received. Excess risk quantified the clinical impact of suboptimal planning. Accuracy of pDVH predictions was validated by replanning 30 of 219 patients (13.7%), including equal numbers of presumed "high-quality," "low-quality," and randomly sampled plans. NTCP-predicted toxicities were compared to adverse events on protocol. RESULTS: Existing models showed that bladder-sparing variations were less prevalent than rectum quality variations and that increased rectal sparing was not correlated with target metrics (dose received by 98% and 2% of the PTV, respectively). Observed toxicities were consistent with current LKB parameters. Converting DVH and pDVH0126,top10% to rectal NTCPs, we observed 94 of 219 patients (42.9%) with ≥5% excess risk, 20 of 219 patients (9.1%) with ≥10% excess risk, and 2 of 219 patients (0.9%) with ≥15% excess risk. Replanning demonstrated the predicted NTCP reductions while maintaining the volume of the PTV receiving prescription dose. An equivalent sample of high-quality plans showed fewer toxicities than low-quality plans, 6 of 73 versus 10 of 73 respectively, although these differences were not significant (P=.21) due to insufficient statistical power in this retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS:Plan quality deficiencies in RTOG 0126 exposed patients to substantial excess risk for rectal complications.
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Ellen D Yorke; Lawrence B Marks; Patricia J Eifel; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Xinglei Shen; Adam P Dicker; Laura A Doyle; Amy S Harrison; Timothy N Showalter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Benjamin E Nelms; Greg Robinson; Jay Markham; Kyle Velasco; Steve Boyd; Sharath Narayan; James Wheeler; Mark L Sobczak Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-01-10
Authors: Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; Jeff M Michalski; Walter R Bosch; Kathryn Winter; James D Cox; James A Purdy; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-02-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Steven F Petit; Binbin Wu; Michael Kazhdan; André Dekker; Patricio Simari; Rachit Kumar; Russel Taylor; Joseph M Herman; Todd McNutt Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Binbin Wu; Francesco Ricchetti; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Misha Kazhdan; Patricio Simari; Ming Chuang; Russell Taylor; Robert Jacques; Todd McNutt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nan Li; Ruben Carmona; Igor Sirak; Linda Kasaova; David Followill; Jeff Michalski; Walter Bosch; William Straube; Loren K Mell; Kevin L Moore Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johnny Kao; Amanda Zucker; Jonathan Timmins; Shankar Taramangalam; Jeffrey Pettit; Aaron J Woodall; Edward Loizides; Andrew T Wong Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2017-06-08
Authors: Kelly C Younge; Robin B Marsh; Dawn Owen; Huaizhi Geng; Ying Xiao; Daniel E Spratt; Joseph Foy; Krithika Suresh; Q Jackie Wu; Fang-Fang Yin; Samuel Ryu; Martha M Matuszak Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nilesh S Tambe; Isabel M Pires; Craig Moore; Christopher Cawthorne; Andrew W Beavis Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 3.039