Literature DB >> 29050954

The TRENDY multi-center randomized trial on hepatocellular carcinoma - Trial QA including automated treatment planning and benchmark-case results.

Steven J M Habraken1, Abdul Wahab M Sharfo2, Jeroen Buijsen3, Wilko F A R Verbakel4, Cornelis J A Haasbeek4, Michel C Öllers3, Henrike Westerveld5, Niek van Wieringen5, Onne Reerink6, Enrica Seravalli6, Pètra M Braam7, Markus Wendling7, Thomas Lacornerie8, Xavier Mirabel8, Reinhilde Weytjens9, Lieselotte Depuydt10, Stephanie Tanadini-Lang11, Oliver Riesterer11, Karin Haustermans12, Tom Depuydt12, Roy S Dwarkasing13, François E J A Willemssen13, Ben J M Heijmen2, Alejandra Méndez Romero2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: The TRENDY trial is an international multi-center phase-II study, randomizing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients between transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with a target dose of 48-54 Gy in six fractions. The radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) program, including prospective plan feedback based on automated treatment planning, is described and results are reported.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Scans of a single patient were used as a benchmark case. Contours submitted by nine participating centers were compared with reference contours. The subsequent planning round was based on a single set of contours. A total of 20 plans from participating centers, including 12 from the benchmark case, 5 from a clinical pilot and 3 from the first study patients, were compared to automatically generated VMAT plans.
RESULTS: For the submitted liver contours, Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC) with the reference delineation ranged from 0.925 to 0.954. For the GTV, the DSC varied between 0.721 and 0.876. For the 12 plans on the benchmark case, healthy liver normal-tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) ranged from 0.2% to 22.2% with little correlation between NCTP and PTV-D95% (R2 < 0.3). Four protocol deviations were detected in the set of 20 treatment plans. Comparison with co-planar autoVMAT QA plans revealed these were due to too high target dose and suboptimal planning. Overall, autoVMAT resulted in an average liver NTCP reduction of 2.2 percent point (range: 16.2 percent point to -1.8 percent point, p = 0.03), and lower doses to the healthy liver (p < 0.01) and gastrointestinal organs at risk (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Delineation variation resulted in feedback to participating centers. Automated treatment planning can play an important role in clinical trials for prospective plan QA as suboptimal plans were detected.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automated treatment planning for plan QA; Benchmark-case delineation; Benchmark-case treatment planning; QA in clinical trials

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29050954     DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  8 in total

Review 1.  Automation in intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning-a review of recent innovations.

Authors:  Mohammad Hussein; Ben J M Heijmen; Dirk Verellen; Andrew Nisbet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current State and Future Opportunities.

Authors:  Payal D Soni; Manisha Palta
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Yabo Fu; Hao Zhang; Eric D Morris; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Suraj Pai; Alberto Traverso; Leonard Wee; Ibrahim Hadzic; Per-Ivar Lønne; Chenyang Shen; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang
Journal:  IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci       Date:  2021-08-24

4.  Automated VMAT planning for postoperative adjuvant treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

Authors:  Abdul Wahab M Sharfo; Florian Stieler; Oskar Kupfer; Ben J M Heijmen; Maarten L P Dirkx; Sebastiaan Breedveld; Frederik Wenz; Frank Lohr; Judit Boda-Heggemann; Daniel Buergy
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 5.  Consensus recommendations for management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases.

Authors:  Alaaeldin Bashier; Azza Bin Hussain; Elamin Abdelgadir; Fatheya Alawadi; Hani Sabbour; Robert Chilton
Journal:  Diabetol Metab Syndr       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.320

6.  Radiotherapy quality assurance for mesorectum treatment planning within the multi-center phase II STAR-TReC trial: Dutch results.

Authors:  Roy P J van den Ende; Femke P Peters; Ernst Harderwijk; Heidi Rütten; Liza Bouwmans; Maaike Berbee; Richard A M Canters; Georgiana Stoian; Kim Compagner; Tom Rozema; Mariska de Smet; Martijn P W Intven; Rob H N Tijssen; Jacqueline Theuws; Paul van Haaren; Baukelien van Triest; Dave Eekhout; Corrie A M Marijnen; Uulke A van der Heide; Ellen M Kerkhof
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 7.  Barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation of radiotherapy treatment planning automation: A survey study of medical dosimetrists.

Authors:  Rachel Petragallo; Naomi Bardach; Ezequiel Ramirez; James M Lamb
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 2.243

8.  Reproducibility for Hepatocellular Carcinoma CT Radiomic Features: Influence of Delineation Variability Based on 3D-CT, 4D-CT and Multiple-Parameter MR Images.

Authors:  Jinghao Duan; Qingtao Qiu; Jian Zhu; Dongping Shang; Xue Dou; Tao Sun; Yong Yin; Xiangjuan Meng
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 5.738

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.