Emmanouil Fokas1, Charlotte Clifford2, Emiliano Spezi3, George Joseph4, Jennifer Branagan5, Chris Hurt6, Lisette Nixon6, Ross Abrams7, John Staffurth8, Somnath Mukherjee9. 1. Radiotherapy Physics Department, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK. Electronic address: emmanouil.fokas@oncology.ox.ac.uk. 2. Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, UK. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK. 4. Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK. 5. Oncology Department, Northampton General Hospital, UK. 6. Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Cardiff University, UK. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, USA. 8. Institute of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University, UK; Cardiff NCRI RTTQA Centre, Velindre NHS Trust, UK. 9. Radiotherapy Physics Department, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the variation in investigator-delineated volumes and assess plans from the radiotherapy trial quality assurance (RTTQA) program of SCALOP, a phase II trial in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participating investigators (n=25) outlined a pre-trial benchmark case as per RT protocol, and the accuracy of investigators' GTV (iGTV) and PTV (iPTV) was evaluated, against the trials team-defined gold standard GTV (gsGTV) and PTV (gsPTV), using both qualitative and geometric analyses. The median Jaccard Conformity Index (JCI) and Geographical Miss Index (GMI) were calculated. Participating RT centers also submitted a radiotherapy plan for this benchmark case, which was centrally reviewed against protocol-defined constraints. RESULTS: Twenty-five investigator-defined contours were evaluated. The median JCI and GMI of iGTVs were 0.57 (IQR: 0.51-0.65) and 0.26 (IQR: 0.15-0.40). For iPTVs, these were 0.75 (IQR: 0.71-0.79) and 0.14 (IQR: 0.11-0.22) respectively. Qualitative analysis showed largest variation at the tumor edges and failure to recognize a peri-pancreatic lymph node. There were no major protocol deviations in RT planning, but three minor PTV coverage deviations were identified. . CONCLUSIONS:SCALOP demonstrated considerable variation in iGTV delineation. RTTQA workshops and real-time central review of delineations are needed in future trials.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the variation in investigator-delineated volumes and assess plans from the radiotherapy trial quality assurance (RTTQA) program of SCALOP, a phase II trial in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participating investigators (n=25) outlined a pre-trial benchmark case as per RT protocol, and the accuracy of investigators' GTV (iGTV) and PTV (iPTV) was evaluated, against the trials team-defined gold standard GTV (gsGTV) and PTV (gsPTV), using both qualitative and geometric analyses. The median Jaccard Conformity Index (JCI) and Geographical Miss Index (GMI) were calculated. Participating RT centers also submitted a radiotherapy plan for this benchmark case, which was centrally reviewed against protocol-defined constraints. RESULTS: Twenty-five investigator-defined contours were evaluated. The median JCI and GMI of iGTVs were 0.57 (IQR: 0.51-0.65) and 0.26 (IQR: 0.15-0.40). For iPTVs, these were 0.75 (IQR: 0.71-0.79) and 0.14 (IQR: 0.11-0.22) respectively. Qualitative analysis showed largest variation at the tumor edges and failure to recognize a peri-pancreatic lymph node. There were no major protocol deviations in RT planning, but three minor PTV coverage deviations were identified. . CONCLUSIONS: SCALOP demonstrated considerable variation in iGTV delineation. RTTQA workshops and real-time central review of delineations are needed in future trials.
Authors: Emily Chan; Lori R Arlinghaus; Dana B Cardin; Laura Goff; Jordan D Berlin; Alexander Parikh; Richard G Abramson; Thomas E Yankeelov; Scott Hiebert; Nipun Merchant; Srividya Bhaskara; Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Wookjin Choi; Ming Xue; Barton F Lane; Min Kyu Kang; Kruti Patel; William F Regine; Paul Klahr; Jiahui Wang; Shifeng Chen; Warren D'Souza; Wei Lu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael V Sherer; Diana Lin; Sharif Elguindi; Simon Duke; Li-Tee Tan; Jon Cacicedo; Max Dahele; Erin F Gillespie Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 6.901
Authors: Eva Versteijne; Eelco Lens; Astrid van der Horst; Arjan Bel; Jorrit Visser; Cornelis J A Punt; Mustafa Suker; Casper H J van Eijck; Geertjan van Tienhoven Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: C N Hurt; S Falk; T Crosby; A McDonald; R Ray; G Joseph; J Staffurth; R A Abrams; G Griffiths; T Maughan; S Mukherjee Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Daniel L P Holyoake; Marianne Aznar; Somnath Mukherjee; Mike Partridge; Maria A Hawkins Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Eva Versteijne; Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Astrid van der Horst; Eelco Lens; M Willemijn Kolff; Jeroen Buijsen; Gati Ebrahimi; Karen J Neelis; Coen R N Rasch; Jaap Stoker; Marcel van Herk; Arjan Bel; Geertjan van Tienhoven Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Daniel L P Holyoake; Maxwell Robinson; Derek Grose; David McIntosh; David Sebag-Montefiore; Ganesh Radhakrishna; Neel Patel; Mike Partridge; Somnath Mukherjee; Maria A Hawkins Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 6.280