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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cagni, Elisabetta, Botti, Andrea, Rossi, Linda, Iotti, Cinzia, Iori, Mauro, Cozzi, Salvatore, Galaverni, Marco, Rosca, Ala, Sghedoni, Roberto, Timon, Giorgia, Spezi, Emiliano, Heijmen, Ben
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