S Braunstein1, C M Glastonbury1,2, J Chen1, J M Quivey1, S S Yom3. 1. From the Departments of Radiation Oncology (S.B., C.M.G., J.C., J.M.Q., S.S.Y.). 2. Radiology (C.M.G.), University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. From the Departments of Radiation Oncology (S.B., C.M.G., J.C., J.M.Q., S.S.Y.) yoms@radonc.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While standard guidelines assist in target delineation for head and neck radiation therapy planning, the complex anatomy, varying patterns of spread, unusual or advanced presentations, and high risk of treatment-related toxicities produce continuous interpretive challenges. In 2007, we instituted weekly treatment planning quality assurance rounds as a joint enterprise of head and neck radiation oncology and neuroradiology. Here we describe its impact on head and neck radiation therapy target delineation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 7 months, treatment planning quality assurance included 80 cases of definitive (48%) or postoperative (52%) head and neck radiation therapy. The planning CT and associated target volumes were reviewed in comparison with diagnostic imaging studies. Alterations were catalogued. RESULTS: Of the 80 cases, 44 (55%) were altered, and of these, 61% had clinically significant changes resulting in exclusion or inclusion of a distinct area or structure. Reasons for alteration included the following: gross or extant tumor, 26/44 (59%); elective or postoperative coverage, 25/44 (57%); lymph nodes, 13/44 (30%); bone, 7/44 (16%); skull base, 7/44 (16%); normal organs, 5/44 (11%); perineural, 3/44 (7%); distant metastasis, 2/44 (5%); and eye, 1/44 (2%). Gross tumor changes ranged from 0.5% to 133.64%, with a median change in volume of 5.95 mm3 (7.86%). Volumes were more likely to be increased (73%) than decreased (27%). CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative approach to head and neck treatment planning quality assurance has an impact. Cases likely to have challenging patterns of infiltrative, intracranial, nodal, orbital, or perineural spread warrant intensive imaging-based review in collaboration with a diagnostic neuroradiologist.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While standard guidelines assist in target delineation for head and neck radiation therapy planning, the complex anatomy, varying patterns of spread, unusual or advanced presentations, and high risk of treatment-related toxicities produce continuous interpretive challenges. In 2007, we instituted weekly treatment planning quality assurance rounds as a joint enterprise of head and neck radiation oncology and neuroradiology. Here we describe its impact on head and neck radiation therapy target delineation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 7 months, treatment planning quality assurance included 80 cases of definitive (48%) or postoperative (52%) head and neck radiation therapy. The planning CT and associated target volumes were reviewed in comparison with diagnostic imaging studies. Alterations were catalogued. RESULTS: Of the 80 cases, 44 (55%) were altered, and of these, 61% had clinically significant changes resulting in exclusion or inclusion of a distinct area or structure. Reasons for alteration included the following: gross or extant tumor, 26/44 (59%); elective or postoperative coverage, 25/44 (57%); lymph nodes, 13/44 (30%); bone, 7/44 (16%); skull base, 7/44 (16%); normal organs, 5/44 (11%); perineural, 3/44 (7%); distant metastasis, 2/44 (5%); and eye, 1/44 (2%). Gross tumor changes ranged from 0.5% to 133.64%, with a median change in volume of 5.95 mm3 (7.86%). Volumes were more likely to be increased (73%) than decreased (27%). CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative approach to head and neck treatment planning quality assurance has an impact. Cases likely to have challenging patterns of infiltrative, intracranial, nodal, orbital, or perineural spread warrant intensive imaging-based review in collaboration with a diagnostic neuroradiologist.
Authors: K Newbold; M Partridge; G Cook; S A Sohaib; E Charles-Edwards; P Rhys-Evans; K Harrington; C Nutting Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Andrew B Hwang; Stephen L Bacharach; Sue S Yom; Vivian K Weinberg; Jeanne M Quivey; Benjamin L Franc; Ping Xia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yaacov Richard Lawrence; Michal A Whiton; Zvi Symon; Evan J Wuthrick; Laura Doyle; Amy S Harrison; Adam P Dicker Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Shilo Lefresne; Ivo A Olivotto; Howard Joe; Paul A Blood; Robert A Olson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael O'Neill; Dwight E Heron; John C Flickinger; Ryan Smith; Robert L Ferris; Michael Gibson Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Dian Wang; Christopher J Schultz; Paul A Jursinic; Mirek Bialkowski; X Ronald Zhu; W Douglas Brown; Scott D Rand; Michelle A Michel; Bruce H Campbell; Stuart Wong; X Allen Li; J Frank Wilson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John E Sylvester; Peter D Grimm; Stephen M Eulau; Robert K Takamiya; Devi Naidoo Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2009 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: John T Lysack; Monica Hoy; Mark E Hudon; Steven C Nakoneshny; Shamir P Chandarana; T Wayne Matthews; Joseph C Dort Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2013-06-05
Authors: Jason W Chan; Nicole Hohenstein; Colin Carpenter; Adam J Pattison; Olivier Morin; Gilmer Valdes; Maria Thompson; Jennifer Perkins; Timothy D Solberg; Sue S Yom Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-12-29
Authors: Ahmed Hosny; Danielle S Bitterman; Christian V Guthier; Jack M Qian; Hannah Roberts; Subha Perni; Anurag Saraf; Luke C Peng; Itai Pashtan; Zezhong Ye; Benjamin H Kann; David E Kozono; David Christiani; Paul J Catalano; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2022-09