Cargando…
Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department
BACKGROUND: Agreement between planners and treating radiation oncologists (ROs) on plan quality criteria is essential for consistent planning. Differences between ROs and planning medical physicists (MPs) in perceived quality of head and neck cancer plans were assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five R...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8545894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34712606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.706034 |
_version_ | 1784590086043598848 |
---|---|
author | Cagni, Elisabetta Botti, Andrea Rossi, Linda Iotti, Cinzia Iori, Mauro Cozzi, Salvatore Galaverni, Marco Rosca, Ala Sghedoni, Roberto Timon, Giorgia Spezi, Emiliano Heijmen, Ben |
author_facet | Cagni, Elisabetta Botti, Andrea Rossi, Linda Iotti, Cinzia Iori, Mauro Cozzi, Salvatore Galaverni, Marco Rosca, Ala Sghedoni, Roberto Timon, Giorgia Spezi, Emiliano Heijmen, Ben |
author_sort | Cagni, Elisabetta |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Agreement between planners and treating radiation oncologists (ROs) on plan quality criteria is essential for consistent planning. Differences between ROs and planning medical physicists (MPs) in perceived quality of head and neck cancer plans were assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five ROs and four MPs scored 65 plans for in total 15 patients. For each patient, the clinical (CLIN) plan and two or four alternative plans, generated with automated multi-criteria optimization (MCO), were included. There was always one MCO plan aiming at maximally adhering to clinical plan requirements, while the other MCO plans had a lower aimed quality. Scores were given as follows: 1–7 and 1–2, not acceptable; 3–5, acceptable if further planning would not resolve perceived weaknesses; and 6–7, straightway acceptable. One MP and one RO repeated plan scoring for intra-observer variation assessment. RESULTS: For the 36 unique observer pairs, the median percentage of plans for which the two observers agreed on a plan score (100% = 65 plans) was 27.7% [6.2, 40.0]. In the repeat scoring, agreements between first and second scoring were 52.3% and 40.0%, respectively. With a binary division between unacceptable (scores 1 and 2) and acceptable (3–7) plans, the median inter-observer agreement percentage was 78.5% [63.1, 86.2], while intra-observer agreements were 96.9% and 86.2%. There were no differences in observed agreements between RO–RO, MP–MP, and RO–MP pairs. Agreements for the highest-quality, automatically generated MCO plans were higher than for the CLIN plans. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-observer differences in plan quality scores were substantial and could result in inconsistencies in generated treatment plans. Agreements among ROs were not better than between ROs and MPs, despite large differences in training and clinical role. High-quality automatically generated plans showed the best score agreements. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8545894 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85458942021-10-27 Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department Cagni, Elisabetta Botti, Andrea Rossi, Linda Iotti, Cinzia Iori, Mauro Cozzi, Salvatore Galaverni, Marco Rosca, Ala Sghedoni, Roberto Timon, Giorgia Spezi, Emiliano Heijmen, Ben Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: Agreement between planners and treating radiation oncologists (ROs) on plan quality criteria is essential for consistent planning. Differences between ROs and planning medical physicists (MPs) in perceived quality of head and neck cancer plans were assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five ROs and four MPs scored 65 plans for in total 15 patients. For each patient, the clinical (CLIN) plan and two or four alternative plans, generated with automated multi-criteria optimization (MCO), were included. There was always one MCO plan aiming at maximally adhering to clinical plan requirements, while the other MCO plans had a lower aimed quality. Scores were given as follows: 1–7 and 1–2, not acceptable; 3–5, acceptable if further planning would not resolve perceived weaknesses; and 6–7, straightway acceptable. One MP and one RO repeated plan scoring for intra-observer variation assessment. RESULTS: For the 36 unique observer pairs, the median percentage of plans for which the two observers agreed on a plan score (100% = 65 plans) was 27.7% [6.2, 40.0]. In the repeat scoring, agreements between first and second scoring were 52.3% and 40.0%, respectively. With a binary division between unacceptable (scores 1 and 2) and acceptable (3–7) plans, the median inter-observer agreement percentage was 78.5% [63.1, 86.2], while intra-observer agreements were 96.9% and 86.2%. There were no differences in observed agreements between RO–RO, MP–MP, and RO–MP pairs. Agreements for the highest-quality, automatically generated MCO plans were higher than for the CLIN plans. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-observer differences in plan quality scores were substantial and could result in inconsistencies in generated treatment plans. Agreements among ROs were not better than between ROs and MPs, despite large differences in training and clinical role. High-quality automatically generated plans showed the best score agreements. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8545894/ /pubmed/34712606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.706034 Text en Copyright © 2021 Cagni, Botti, Rossi, Iotti, Iori, Cozzi, Galaverni, Rosca, Sghedoni, Timon, Spezi and Heijmen https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Cagni, Elisabetta Botti, Andrea Rossi, Linda Iotti, Cinzia Iori, Mauro Cozzi, Salvatore Galaverni, Marco Rosca, Ala Sghedoni, Roberto Timon, Giorgia Spezi, Emiliano Heijmen, Ben Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department |
title | Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department |
title_full | Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department |
title_fullStr | Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department |
title_full_unstemmed | Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department |
title_short | Variations in Head and Neck Treatment Plan Quality Assessment Among Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists in a Single Radiotherapy Department |
title_sort | variations in head and neck treatment plan quality assessment among radiation oncologists and medical physicists in a single radiotherapy department |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8545894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34712606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.706034 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cagnielisabetta variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT bottiandrea variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT rossilinda variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT iotticinzia variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT iorimauro variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT cozzisalvatore variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT galavernimarco variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT roscaala variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT sghedoniroberto variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT timongiorgia variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT speziemiliano variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment AT heijmenben variationsinheadandnecktreatmentplanqualityassessmentamongradiationoncologistsandmedicalphysicistsinasingleradiotherapydepartment |