Sean L Berry1, Amanda Boczkowski2, Rongtao Ma2, James Mechalakos2, Margie Hunt2. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: BerryS@MSKCC.org. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the sources of variability in radiation therapy treatment plan output between planners within a single institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty treatment planners across 5 campuses of an institution created a plan on the same thoracic esophagus patient computed tomography scan and structure set. Plans were scored and ranked based on the planner's adherence to an ordered list of target dose coverage and normal tissue evaluation criteria. A runs test was used to identify whether any of the studied planner qualities influenced the ranking. Spearman rank correlation was used to investigate whether plan score correlated with years of experience or planned monitor units. RESULTS: The distribution of scores, ranging from 80.24 to 135.89, was negatively skewed (mean, 128.7; median, 131.5). No statistically significant relationship between plan score and campus (P = .193), job title (P = .174), previous outside experience (P = .611), or number of gantry angles (P = .156) was discovered. No statistical correlation between plan score and monitor unit or years of experience was found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear and established critical organ dose criteria and well-documented planning guidelines, planning variation still occurs, even among members of the same institution. Because plan consistency does not seem to significantly correlate with experience, career path, or campus, investigation into alternate methods beyond additional education and training to reduce this variation, such as knowledge-based planning or advanced optimization techniques, is necessary.
PURPOSE: We investigated the sources of variability in radiation therapy treatment plan output between planners within a single institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty treatment planners across 5 campuses of an institution created a plan on the same thoracic esophagus patient computed tomography scan and structure set. Plans were scored and ranked based on the planner's adherence to an ordered list of target dose coverage and normal tissue evaluation criteria. A runs test was used to identify whether any of the studied planner qualities influenced the ranking. Spearman rank correlation was used to investigate whether plan score correlated with years of experience or planned monitor units. RESULTS: The distribution of scores, ranging from 80.24 to 135.89, was negatively skewed (mean, 128.7; median, 131.5). No statistically significant relationship between plan score and campus (P = .193), job title (P = .174), previous outside experience (P = .611), or number of gantry angles (P = .156) was discovered. No statistical correlation between plan score and monitor unit or years of experience was found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear and established critical organ dose criteria and well-documented planning guidelines, planning variation still occurs, even among members of the same institution. Because plan consistency does not seem to significantly correlate with experience, career path, or campus, investigation into alternate methods beyond additional education and training to reduce this variation, such as knowledge-based planning or advanced optimization techniques, is necessary.
Authors: Jan J Wilkens; James R Alaly; Konstantin Zakarian; Wade L Thorstad; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Kevin L Moore; Rachel Schmidt; Vitali Moiseenko; Lindsey A Olsen; Jun Tan; Ying Xiao; James Galvin; Stephanie Pugh; Michael J Seider; Adam P Dicker; Walter Bosch; Jeff Michalski; Sasa Mutic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S B Crowe; T Kairn; N Middlebrook; B Sutherland; B Hill; J Kenny; C M Langton; J V Trapp Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 3.609
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: David Good; Joseph Lo; W Robert Lee; Q Jackie Wu; Fang-Fang Yin; Shiva K Das Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Elizabeth Huynh; Ahmed Hosny; Christian Guthier; Danielle S Bitterman; Steven F Petit; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Benjamin Kann; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Michael V Sherer; Diana Lin; Kartikeya Puri; Neil Panjwani; Zhigang Zhang; James D Murphy; Erin F Gillespie Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-10
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