Literature DB >> 27374191

Interobserver variability in radiation therapy plan output: Results of a single-institution study.

Sean L Berry1, Amanda Boczkowski2, Rongtao Ma2, James Mechalakos2, Margie Hunt2.   

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.
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27374191      PMCID: PMC5099085          DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol        ISSN: 1879-8500


  23 in total

1.  IMRT treatment planning based on prioritizing prescription goals.

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

2.  Experience-based quality control of clinical intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning.

Authors:  Kevin L Moore; R Scott Brame; Daniel A Low; Sasa Mutic
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Quantifying Unnecessary Normal Tissue Complication Risks due to Suboptimal Planning: A Secondary Study of RTOG 0126.

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

4.  Examination of the properties of IMRT and VMAT beams and evaluation against pre-treatment quality assurance results.

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

Review 5.  Radiotherapy protocol deviations and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis of cooperative group clinical trials.

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

6.  A knowledge-based approach to improving and homogenizing intensity modulated radiation therapy planning quality among treatment centers: an example application to prostate cancer planning.

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

7.  Variation in external beam treatment plan quality: An inter-institutional study of planners and planning systems.

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

8.  Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are associated with improved outcomes over surgery and chemotherapy in the management of limited-stage small cell esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Mao-Bin Meng; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Chao Jiang; Li-Jun Tian; Huan-Huan Wang; Chun-Lei Liu; Juan Wang; Zhen Tao; Yao Sun; Jun Wang; Qing-Song Pang; Lu-Jun Zhao; Zhi-Yong Yuan; Wang Ping
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2013-02-23       Impact factor: 6.280

9.  Primary small cell carcinoma of the esophagus.

Authors:  Jima Lv; Jun Liang; Jinwan Wang; Luhua Wang; Jie He; Zefen Xiao; Weibo Yin
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 15.609

Review 10.  Does quality of radiation therapy predict outcomes of multicenter cooperative group trials? A literature review.

Authors:  Alysa Fairchild; William Straube; Fran Laurie; David Followill
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 7.038

View more
  26 in total

1.  Evaluating inter-campus plan consistency using a knowledge based planning model.

Authors:  Sean L Berry; Rongtao Ma; Amanda Boczkowski; Andrew Jackson; Pengpeng Zhang; Margie Hunt
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 6.280

2.  Five years' experience with a customized electronic checklist for radiation therapy planning quality assurance in a multicampus institution.

Authors:  Sean L Berry; Kevin P Tierney; Sharif Elguindi; James G Mechalakos
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-12-24

Review 3.  Artificial intelligence in radiation oncology.

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

Review 4.  Automated Radiation Treatment Planning for Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Dong Joo Rhee; Anuja Jhingran; Kelly Kisling; Carlos Cardenas; Hannah Simonds; Laurence Court
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 5.934

5.  Development and Usage of eContour, a Novel, Three-Dimensional, Image-Based Web Site to Facilitate Access to Contouring Guidelines at the Point of Care.

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

6.  Use of a constrained hierarchical optimization dataset enhances knowledge-based planning as a quality assurance tool for prostate bed irradiation.

Authors:  Yen Hwa Lin; Linda X Hong; Margie A Hunt; Sean L Berry
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Validation of in-house knowledge-based planning model for advance-stage lung cancer patients treated using VMAT radiotherapy.

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

8.  Impact of dosimetric differences between CT and MRI derived target volumes for external beam cervical cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Vikneswary Batumalai; Siobhan Burke; Dale Roach; Karen Lim; Glen Dinsdale; Michael Jameson; Cesar Ochoa; Jacqueline Veera; Lois Holloway; Shalini Vinod
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  A UK wide study of current prostate planning practice.

Authors:  Timothy Taylor; Neil Richmond
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Evaluation of Auto-Planning for Left-Side Breast Cancer After Breast-Conserving Surgery Based on Geometrical Relationship.

Authors:  Yijiang Li; Han Bai; Danju Huang; Feihu Chen; Yaoxiong Xia
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.