Targeted Intervention to Improve the Quality of Head and Neck Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning in the Netherlands: Short and Long-Term Impact

Improving performance in radiation oncology: An international systematic review of quality improvement interventions

National cancer audits and registers have highlighted significant national and international variation in patient care and outcomes. Quality Improvement (QI) is mandated in radiation oncology but the interventions designed to support QI in this field remain poorly understood. This paper seeks to assess the types of QI interventions in radiation oncology, the QI evaluation design and their impact on process of care measures and patient-related outcomes. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched systematically for studies of QI interventions in radiation oncology between 2000 and 2024. The studies needed to identify the quantitative or qualitative impact of the QI intervention on process of care measures or patient-related outcomes. Study results were summarised using narrative synthesis and appraised using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS). 26 papers were included in the analysis. The majority of studies were conducted in the USA (n = 13) and in Europe (n = 7), with only two studies conducted at a national level. Ten studies covered all tumour types, with six specifically focusing on head and neck cancers, two each on prostate and nasopharyngeal cancers, and one study each examining lung, cervical, rectal, and breast cancers. The aspects of care evaluated most frequently were those relating to reducing waiting times or increasing utilisation of radiotherapy as per guidelines (n = 15), followed by those seeking to reduce radiotherapy contouring variability (n = 5) and those involving the management of symptoms during or after radiotherapy treatment (n = 6). Only 42 % of studies reported funding, with the most frequent funding source being national, government or federal (n = 6). All QI interventions across the 26 studies were successful as they resulted in an improvement in a process or patient-related outcome measure. The studies scored between 10 and 15 out of 16, according to the QI-MQCS criteria. Despite substantial investments in cancer research and development, there is a scarcity of information on how to enhance the quality of care in radiation oncology. While there are examples of national cancer audits and registers in a number of countries, much of the research in QI interventions is being conducted in the USA. This situation underscores the need for more comprehensive, well-funded studies and improved training for clinicians to conduct high-quality improvement activities and research. There should be a greater emphasis on the substantial gains that can be achieved by improving existing care in terms of access and outcomes, rather than solely focusing on innovation.

Clinical Introduction of Stem Cell Sparing Radiotherapy to Reduce the Risk of Xerostomia in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Studies have shown that dose to the parotid gland stem cell rich (SCR) regions should be reduced to lower the risk of xerostomia after radiotherapy (RT). This study aimed to assess whether stem cell sparing (SCS)-RT can be adopted in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Multiple planning studies were performed to compare SCS-RT with standard (ST)-RT using 30 head and neck cancer patients. Shifts in mean dose to the SCR regions (Dmean,SCR) and other organs at risk and their estimated impact on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for side-effects were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A multicenter study was performed (eight institutions, three patients) to test the generalizability of SCS-RT using the Friedman test.

RESULTS

Using photons, Dmean,SCR was reduced with median 4.1/3.5 Gy for ipsilateral/contralateral (p < 0.001). The largest reductions were when the SCR regions overlapped less with target volumes. Subsequently, NTCPs for xerostomia decreased (p < 0.001). Using protons, Dmean,SCR was also reduced (2.2/1.9 Gy for ipsilateral/contralateral, p < 0.002). Nevertheless, SCS-RT did not further decrease NTCPs for xerostomia (p > 0.17). Target coverage and prevention of other side-effects were not compromised. However, increased mean oral cavity dose was observed in some patients. Lastly, in the multicenter study Dmean,SCR could be reduced by slightly adjusting the standard optimization. Contralateral Dmean,SCR reductions differed between centers (p = 0.01), which was attributed to differences in ST-RT plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Stem cell sparing radiotherapy can be clinically introduced by making small adjustments to the optimization strategy and can reduce the risk of xerostomia.

Dose distribution prediction for head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy using a generative adversarial network: influence of input data

Purpose

A three-dimensional deep generative adversarial network (GAN) was used to predict dose distributions for locally advanced head and neck cancer radiotherapy. Given the labor- and time-intensive nature of manual planning target volume (PTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) segmentation, we investigated whether dose distributions could be predicted without the need for fully segmented datasets.

Materials and methods

GANs were trained/validated/tested using 320/30/35 previously segmented CT datasets and treatment plans. The following input combinations were used to train and test the models: CT-scan only (C); CT+PTVboost/elective (CP); CT+PTVs+OARs+body structure (CPOB); PTVs+OARs+body structure (POB); PTVs+body structure (PB). Mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the predicted dose distribution and mean doses to individual OARs (individual salivary glands, individual swallowing structures) were analyzed.

Results

For the five models listed, MAEs were 7.3 Gy, 3.5 Gy, 3.4 Gy, 3.4 Gy, and 3.5 Gy, respectively, without significant differences among CP-CPOB, CP-POB, CP-PB, among CPOB-POB. Dose volume histograms showed that all four models that included PTV contours predicted dose distributions that had a high level of agreement with clinical treatment plans. The best model CPOB and the worst model PB (except model C) predicted mean dose to within ±3 Gy of the clinical dose, for 82.6%/88.6%/82.9% and 71.4%/67.1%/72.2% of all OARs, parotid glands (PG), and submandibular glands (SMG), respectively. The R2 values (0.17/0.96/0.97/0.95/0.95) of OAR mean doses for each model also indicated that except for model C, the predictions correlated highly with the clinical dose distributions. Interestingly model C could reasonably predict the dose in eight patients, but on average, it performed inadequately.

Conclusion

We demonstrated the influence of the CT scan, and PTV and OAR contours on dose prediction. Model CP was not statistically different from model CPOB and represents the minimum data statistically required to adequately predict the clinical dose distribution in a group of patients.

Head and Neck Radiation Therapy Patterns of Practice Variability Identified as a Challenge to Real-World Big Data: Results From the Learning from Analysis of Multicentre Big Data Aggregation (LAMBDA) Consortium

Purpose

Outside of randomized clinical trials, it is difficult to develop clinically relevant evidence-based recommendations for radiation therapy (RT) practice guidelines owing to lack of comprehensive real-world data. To address this knowledge gap, we formed the Learning from Analysis of Multicenter Big Data Aggregation consortium to cooperatively implement RT data standardization, develop software solutions for data analysis, and recommend clinical practice change based on real-world data analyzed. The first phase of this "Big Data" study aimed at characterizing variability in clinical practice patterns of dosimetric data for organs at risk (OARs) that would undermine subsequent use of large-scale, electronically aggregated data to characterize associations with outcomes. Evidence from this study was used as the basis for practical recommendations to improve data quality.

Methods and Materials

Dosimetric details of patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiation therapy between 2014 and 2019 were analyzed. Institutional patterns of practice were characterized, including structure nomenclature, volumes, and frequency of contouring. Dose volume histogram (DVH) distributions were characterized and compared with institutional constraints and literature values.

Results

Plans for 4664 patients treated to a mean plan dose of 64.4 ± 13.2 Gy in 32 ± 4 fractions were aggregated. Before implementation of TG-263 guidelines in each institution, there was variability in OAR nomenclature across institutions and structures. With evidence from this study, we identified a targeted and practical set of recommendations aimed at improving the quality of real-world data.

Conclusions

Quantifying similarities and differences among institutions for OAR structures and DVH metrics is the launching point for next steps to investigate potential relationships between DVH parameters and patient outcomes.

Influence of Beam Angle on Normal Tissue Complication Probability of Knowledge-Based Head and Neck Cancer Proton Planning

Knowledge-based planning solutions have brought significant improvements in treatment planning. However, the performance of a proton-specific knowledge-based planning model in creating knowledge-based plans (KBPs) with beam angles differing from those used to train the model remains unexplored. We used a previously validated RapidPlanPT model and scripting to create nine KBPs, one with default and eight with altered beam angles, for 10 recent oropharynx cancer patients. The altered-angle plans were compared against the default-angle ones in terms of grade 2 dysphagia and xerostomia normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), mean doses of several organs at risk, and dose homogeneity index (HI). As KBP could be suboptimal, a proof of principle automatic iterative optimizer (AIO) was added with the aim of reducing the plan NTCP. There were no statistically significant differences in NTCP or HI between default- and altered-angle KBPs, and the altered-angle plans showed a <1% reduction in NTCP. AIO was able to reduce the sum of grade 2 NTCPs in 66/90 cases with mean a reduction of 3.5 ± 1.8%. While the altered-angle plans saw greater benefit from AIO, both default- and altered-angle plans could be improved, indicating that the KBP model alone was not completely optimal to achieve the lowest NTCP. Overall, the data showed that the model was robust to the various beam arrangements within the range described in this analysis.

Automatic segmentation of head and neck primary tumors on MRI using a multi-view CNN

Background 

Accurate segmentation of head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) is important for radiotherapy treatment planning. Manual segmentation of these tumors is time-consuming and vulnerable to inconsistencies between experts, especially in the complex head and neck region. The aim of this study is to introduce and evaluate an automatic segmentation pipeline for HNSCC using a multi-view CNN (MV-CNN).

Methods

The dataset included 220 patients with primary HNSCC and availability of T1-weighted, STIR and optionally contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR images together with a manual reference segmentation of the primary tumor by an expert. A T1-weighted standard space of the head and neck region was created to register all MRI sequences to. An MV-CNN was trained with these three MRI sequences and evaluated in terms of volumetric and spatial performance in a cross-validation by measuring intra-class correlation (ICC) and dice similarity score (DSC), respectively.

Results

The average manual segmented primary tumor volume was 11.8±6.70 cm³ with a median [IQR] of 13.9 [3.22-15.9] cm³. The tumor volume measured by MV-CNN was 22.8±21.1 cm³ with a median [IQR] of 16.0 [8.24-31.1] cm³. Compared to the manual segmentations, the MV-CNN scored an average ICC of 0.64±0.06 and a DSC of 0.49±0.19. Improved segmentation performance was observed with increasing primary tumor volume: the smallest tumor volume group (<3 cm³) scored a DSC of 0.26±0.16 and the largest group (>15 cm³) a DSC of 0.63±0.11 (p<0.001). The automated segmentation tended to overestimate compared to the manual reference, both around the actual primary tumor and in false positively classified healthy structures and pathologically enlarged lymph nodes.

Conclusion

An automatic segmentation pipeline was evaluated for primary HNSCC on MRI. The MV-CNN produced reasonable segmentation results, especially on large tumors, but overestimation decreased overall performance. In further research, the focus should be on decreasing false positives and make it valuable in treatment planning.

Fast, automated knowledge-based treatment planning for selecting patients for proton therapy based on normal tissue complication probabilities

Purpose

Selecting patients who will benefit from proton therapy is laborious and subjective. We demonstrate a novel automated solution for creating high-quality knowledge-based plans (KBPs) using proton and photon beams to identify patients for proton treatment based on their normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP).

Methods and Materials

Two previously validated RapidPlan PT models for locally advanced head and neck cancer were used in combination with scripting to automatically create proton and photon KBPs for 72 patients with recent oropharynx cancer. NTCPs were calculated for each patient based on the KBPs, and patient selection was simulated according to the current Dutch national protocol.

Results

The photon/proton KBP exhibited good correlation between predicted and achieved organ-at-risk mean doses, with a ≤5 Gy difference in 208/196 out of 215 structures relevant for the head and neck cancer NTCP model. The proton KBPs yielded on average 7.1/6.1/7.6 Gy lower dose to salivary/swallowing structures/oral cavity than the photon KBPs. This reduced average grade 2/3 dysphagia and xerostomia by 7.1/3.3 and 5.5/2.0 percentage points, resulting in 16 of 72 patients (22%) being indicated for proton treatment. The entire automated process took <30 minutes per patient.

Conclusions

Automated support for decision making using KBP is feasible and fast. The planning solution has potential to speed up the planning and patient-selection process significantly without major compromises to the plan quality.

Relationship between Treatment Plan Dosimetry, Toxicity, and Survival following Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, with or without Chemotherapy, for Stage III Inoperable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Simple Summary

Various radiotherapy treatment methods are available for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A multidisciplinary tumor board review is recommended to determine the best treatment strategy. In fit patients with inoperable tumors, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) is preferred over sequential CRT (sCRT), due to better survival. Nonetheless, the use of cCRT in stage III NSCLC varies significantly, with concerns about treatment toxicity being a contributory factor. Many reports describing the relationship between overall survival, toxicity, and dosimetry in patients with locally advanced NSCLC are based on clinical trials, with strict criteria for patient selection, including good performance status, pulmonary function, etc. These trials have not always mandated the use of IMRT/VMAT. We therefore performed an institutional analysis to study the relationship between dosimetric parameters and overall survival and toxicity in patients with stage III NSCLC treated with IMRT/VMAT-based techniques in routine clinical practice.

Abstract

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) is the preferred treatment for stage III NSCLC because surgery containing multimodality treatment is often not appropriate. Alternatives, often for less fit patients, include sequential CRT and RT alone. Many reports describing the relationship between overall survival (OS), toxicity, and dosimetry are based on clinical trials, with strict criteria for patient selection. We performed an institutional analysis to study the relationship between dosimetric parameters, toxicity, and OS in inoperable patients with stage III NSCLC treated with (hybrid) IMRT/VMAT-based techniques in routine clinical practice. Eligible patients had undergone treatment with radical intent using cCRT, sCRT, or RT alone, planned to a total dose ≥ 50 Gy delivered in ≥15 fractions. All analyses were performed for two patient groups, (1) cCRT (n = 64) and (2) sCRT/RT (n = 65). The toxicity rate differences between the two groups were not significant, and OS was 29 and 17 months, respectively. For sCRT/RT, no dosimetric factors were associated with OS, whereas for cCRT, PTV-volume, esophagus V50 Gy, and contralateral lung V5 Gy were associated. cCRT OS was significantly lower in patients with esophagitis ≥ G2. The overall rate of ≥G3 pneumonitis was low (3%), and the rate of high-grade esophagitis the OS in this real-world patient population was comparable to those reported in clinical trials. Based on this hypothesis-generating data, more aggressive esophageal sparing merits consideration. Institutional auditing and benchmarking of the planning strategy, dosimetry, and outcome have an important role to play in the continuous quality improvement process.

Head and neck radiotherapy on the MR linac: a multicenter planning challenge amongst MRIdian platform users

Purpose

Purpose of this study is to evaluate plan quality on the MRIdian (Viewray Inc., Oakwood Village, OH, USA) system for head and neck cancer (HNC) through comparison of planning approaches of several centers.

Methods

A total of 14 planners using the MRIdian planning system participated in this treatment challenge, centrally organized by ViewRay, for one contoured case of oropharyngeal carcinoma with standard constraints for organs at risk (OAR). Homogeneity, conformity, sparing of OARs, and other parameters were evaluated according to The International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) recommendations anonymously, and then compared between centers. Differences amongst centers were assessed by means of Wilcoxon test. Each plan had to fulfil hard constraints based on dose–volume histogram (DVH) parameters and delivery time. A plan quality metric (PQM) was evaluated. The PQM was defined as the sum of 16 submetrics characterizing different DVH goals.

Results

For most dose parameters the median score of all centers was higher than the threshold that results in an ideal score. Six participants achieved the maximum number of points for the OAR dose parameters, and none had an unacceptable performance on any of the metrics. Each planner was able to achieve all the requirements except for one which exceeded delivery time. The number of segments correlated to improved PQM and inversely correlated to brainstem D_0.1cc and to Planning Target Volume1 (PTV) D_0.1cc. Total planning experience inversely correlated to spinal canal dose.

Conclusion

Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) linac-based planning for HNC is already feasible with good quality. Generally, an increased number of segments and increasing planning experience are able to provide better results regarding planning quality without significantly prolonging overall treatment time.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-021-01771-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Proton therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: A review of the physical and clinical challenges

The quality of radiation therapy has been shown to significantly influence the outcomes for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients. The results of dosimetric studies suggest that intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could be of added value for HNSCC by being more effective than intensity-modulated (photon) radiation therapy (IMRT) for reducing side effects of radiation therapy. However, the physical properties of protons make IMPT more sensitive than photons to planning uncertainties. This could potentially have a negative effect on the quality of IMPT planning and delivery. For this review, the three French proton therapy centers collaborated to evaluate the differences between IMRT and IMPT. The review explored the effects of these uncertainties and their management for developing a robust and optimized IMPT treatment delivery plan to achieve clinical outcomes that are superior to those for IMRT. We also provide practical suggestions for the management of HNSCC carcinoma with IMPT. Because metallic dental implants can increase range uncertainties (3-10%), patient preparation for IMPT may require more systematic removal of in-field alien material than is done for IMRT. Multi-energy CT may be an alternative to calculate more accurately the dose distribution. The practical aspects that we describe are essential to guarantee optimal quality in radiation therapy in both model-based and randomized clinical trials.