1
|
Abdel-Wahab M, Giammarile F, Carrara M, Paez D, Hricak H, Ayati N, Li JJ, Mueller M, Aggarwal A, Al-Ibraheem A, Alkhatib S, Atun R, Bello A, Berger D, Delgado Bolton RC, Buatti JM, Burt G, Bjelac OC, Cordero-Mendez L, Dosanjh M, Eichler T, Fidarova E, Gondhowiardjo S, Gospodarowicz M, Grover S, Hande V, Harsdorf-Enderndorf E, Herrmann K, Hofman MS, Holmberg O, Jaffray D, Knoll P, Kunikowska J, Lewis JS, Lievens Y, Mikhail-Lette M, Ostwald D, Palta JR, Peristeris P, Rosa AA, Salem SA, Dos Santos MA, Sathekge MM, Shrivastava SK, Titovich E, Urbain JL, Vanderpuye V, Wahl RL, Yu JS, Zaghloul MS, Zhu H, Scott AM. Radiotherapy and theranostics: a Lancet Oncology Commission. Lancet Oncol 2024; 25:e545-e580. [PMID: 39362232 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00407-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2024] [Revised: 07/18/2024] [Accepted: 07/19/2024] [Indexed: 10/05/2024]
Abstract
Following on from the 2015 Lancet Oncology Commission on expanding global access to radiotherapy, Radiotherapy and theranostics: a Lancet Oncology Commission was created to assess the access and availability of radiotherapy to date and to address the important issue of access to the promising field of theranostics at a global level. A marked disparity in the availability of radiotherapy machines between high-income countries and low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been identified previously and remains a major problem. The availability of a suitably trained and credentialled workforce has also been highlighted as a major limiting factor to effective implementation of radiotherapy, particularly in LMICs. We investigated initiatives that could mitigate these issues in radiotherapy, such as extended treatment hours, hypofractionation protocols, and new technologies. The broad implementation of hypofractionation techniques compared with conventional radiotherapy in prostate cancer and breast cancer was projected to provide radiotherapy for an additional 2·2 million patients (0·8 million patients with prostate cancer and 1·4 million patients with breast cancer) with existing resources, highlighting the importance of implementing new technologies in LMICs. A global survey undertaken for this Commission revealed that use of radiopharmaceutical therapy-other than 131I-was highly variable in high-income countries and LMICs, with supply chains, workforces, and regulatory issues affecting access and availability. The capacity for radioisotope production was highlighted as a key issue, and training and credentialling of health professionals involved in theranostics is required to ensure equitable access and availability for patient treatment. New initiatives-such as the International Atomic Energy Agency's Rays of Hope programme-and interest by international development banks in investing in radiotherapy should be supported by health-care systems and governments, and extended to accelerate the momentum generated by recognising global disparities in access to radiotherapy. In this Commission, we propose actions and investments that could enhance access to radiotherapy and theranostics worldwide, particularly in LMICs, to realise health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer by accessing these treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- May Abdel-Wahab
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
| | - Francesco Giammarile
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mauro Carrara
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Diana Paez
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Hedvig Hricak
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, New York, NY, USA; Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Gerstner Sloan Kettering Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nayyereh Ayati
- Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jing Jing Li
- Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Akram Al-Ibraheem
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan; Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Sondos Alkhatib
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Rifat Atun
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Abubakar Bello
- National Hospital, Abuja and Federal University of Health Sciences, Azare, Nigeria
| | - Daniel Berger
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Roberto C Delgado Bolton
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging (Radiology) and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital San Pedro and Centre for Biomedical Research of La Rioja, Logroño, Spain; Servicio Cántabro de Salud, Santander, Spain
| | - John M Buatti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | | | - Olivera Ciraj Bjelac
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Lisbeth Cordero-Mendez
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Manjit Dosanjh
- University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Eichler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massey Cancer Center Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Elena Fidarova
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Mary Gospodarowicz
- Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Surbhi Grover
- Botswana-University of Pennsylvania Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Varsha Hande
- Department of Global Health, Medicine and Welfare, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Ekaterina Harsdorf-Enderndorf
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ken Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Michael S Hofman
- Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ola Holmberg
- Division of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety, Department of Nuclear Safety and Security, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - David Jaffray
- Department of Radiation Physics and Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Peter Knoll
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Jolanta Kunikowska
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Jason S Lewis
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, New York, NY, USA; Department of Pharmacology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yolande Lievens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital and Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Miriam Mikhail-Lette
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Dennis Ostwald
- WifOR Institute, Darmstadt, Germany; Steinbeis School of International Business and Entrepreneurship, Herrenberg, Germany
| | - Jatinder R Palta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | | | - Arthur A Rosa
- Radiation Oncology, Grupo Oncoclinicas, Salvador, Brazil
| | - Soha Ahmed Salem
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Mike M Sathekge
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; Steve Biko Academic Hospital, Pretoria, South Africa; Nuclear Medicine Research Infrastructure, Pretoria, South Africa
| | | | - Egor Titovich
- Division of Human Health, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Jean-Luc Urbain
- Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Branford General Hospital, Ontario, Canada
| | - Verna Vanderpuye
- National Center for Radiotherapy Oncology and Nuclear Medicine Department of the Korlebu Teaching Hospital, Accra, Ghana
| | - Richard L Wahl
- Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Department of Radiology, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Jennifer S Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH USA
| | - Mohamed Saad Zaghloul
- Radiation Oncology Department, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University & Children's Cancer Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Hongcheng Zhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Andrew M Scott
- Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bordigoni B, Trivellato S, Pellegrini R, Meregalli S, Bonetto E, Belmonte M, Castellano M, Panizza D, Arcangeli S, De Ponti E. Automated segmentation in pelvic radiotherapy: A comprehensive evaluation of ATLAS-, machine learning-, and deep learning-based models. Phys Med 2024; 125:104486. [PMID: 39098106 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.104486] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2023] [Revised: 06/20/2024] [Accepted: 07/17/2024] [Indexed: 08/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Artificial intelligence can standardize and automatize highly demanding procedures, such as manual segmentation, especially in an anatomical site as common as the pelvis. This study investigated four automated segmentation tools on computed tomography (CT) images in female and male pelvic radiotherapy (RT) starting from simpler and well-known atlas-based methods to the most recent neural networks-based algorithms. The evaluation included quantitative, qualitative and time efficiency assessments. A mono-institutional consecutive series of 40 cervical cancer and 40 prostate cancer structure sets were retrospectively selected. After a preparatory phase, the remaining 20 testing sets per each site were auto-segmented by the atlas-based model STAPLE, a Random Forest-based model, and two Deep Learning-based tools (DL), MVision and LimbusAI. Setting manual segmentation as the Ground Truth, 200 structure sets were compared in terms of Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff Distance (HD), and Distance-to-Agreement Portion (DAP). Automated segmentation and manual correction durations were recorded. Expert clinicians performed a qualitative evaluation. In cervical cancer CTs, DL outperformed the other tools with higher quantitative metrics, qualitative scores, and shorter correction times. On the other hand, in prostate cancer CTs, the performance across all the analyzed tools was comparable in terms of both quantitative and qualitative metrics. Such discrepancy in performance outcome could be explained by the wide range of anatomical variability in cervical cancer with respect to the strict bladder and rectum filling preparation in prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Decreasing segmentation times can reduce the burden of pelvic radiation therapy routine in an automated workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Bordigoni
- Medical Physics, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| | - S Trivellato
- Medical Physics, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| | | | - S Meregalli
- Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| | - E Bonetto
- Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| | - M Belmonte
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy; Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| | - M Castellano
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy; Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| | - D Panizza
- Medical Physics, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy; School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
| | - S Arcangeli
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy; Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.
| | - E De Ponti
- Medical Physics, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy; School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sidhu MS, Gokhroo G, Mulinti S, Pati MB, Murali M, Gupta V, Chaudhari S, Rayn K, Beriwal S. Pilot study of radiation oncology peer review in low middle income country (LMIC) through cloud-based platform. J Cancer Res Ther 2024; 20:1591-1594. [PMID: 39412924 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1697_23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2023] [Accepted: 04/06/2024] [Indexed: 10/18/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Peer review is an essential step in clinical quality assurance for radiation therapy. There are very little data on peer reviews from low-middle-income countries (LMIC). With increasing access to advanced technologies in LMIC also, peer review is becoming more important to ensure quality and standard of care. We evaluated cloud-based e-Peer review in our network of cancer centers in India with an aim to study its feasibility and impact on care. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four out of 13 cancer centers across India were selected for this pilot study. All team members were trained on the e-Peer review platform before the initiation of the study. A lead dosimetrist from a centralized planning site was selected to share new cases every week. Cases treated with only definitive intent were selected. The link to the cases was sent through an email to reviewing physicians. The following aspects were reviewed for each case. 1) Work up and staging. 2) Treatment intent and prescription. 3) Target contours. 4) Normal organ at risk contours. 5) Dose-volume-histogram (DVH) with clinical goals attached. Cases were marked as "Not Appropriate," "Appropriate," "Appropriate with minor finding," and "Represent with major revisions" as per volume and plan review. RESULTS Over a period of 3 months, 100 cases underwent peer review before the start of treatment. Median turnover time was 48 (interquartile range: 24-96) hours. The median time for review was 8 min with time to review cases requiring major and minor changes being 12 and 6 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Of all the cases reviewed, no changes, minor changes, and major changes were suggested for 36%, 48%, and 16% of cases, respectively. The most frequent reason for major changes was contouring corrections (15%). Also, 31.3% of major changes underwent recontouring and replanning before initiation of treatment. CONCLUSION Peer review was feasible in our setting through this cloud-based peer review system, with median turnover time and time taken for review being 48 h and 8 min, respectively. Like published data from the Western world, peer review led to changes that could impact patient care delivery and outcome. We plan to implement this across the remaining centers in our network.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manjinder S Sidhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, American Oncology Institute- DMC Care Centre, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
| | - Garima Gokhroo
- Department of Medical Physis, American Oncology Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Suneetha Mulinti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, American Oncology Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Mangesh B Pati
- Department of Radiation Oncology, American Oncology Institute, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
| | - Midhun Murali
- Department of Radiation Oncology American Oncology Institute, Calicut, Kerala, India
| | - Vibhor Gupta
- Department of Clinical Affairs and Strategy, American Oncology Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Suresh Chaudhari
- Department of Medical Physis, American Oncology Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Kareem Rayn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York NY, USA
| | - Sushil Beriwal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rayn K, Gupta V, Mulinti S, Clark R, Magliari A, Chaudhari S, Garima G, Beriwal S. Evaluation of a deep image-to-image network (DI2IN) auto-segmentation algorithm across a network of cancer centers. J Cancer Res Ther 2024; 20:1020-1025. [PMID: 39023610 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_769_23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2023] [Accepted: 06/23/2023] [Indexed: 07/20/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE S Due to manual OAR contouring challenges, various automatic contouring solutions have been introduced. Historically, common clinical auto-segmentation algorithms used were atlas-based, which required maintaining a library of self-made contours. Searching the collection was computationally intensive and could take several minutes to complete. Deep learning approaches have shown significant benefits compared to atlas-based methods in improving segmentation accuracy and efficiency in auto-segmentation algorithms. This work represents the first multi-institutional study to describe and evaluate an AI algorithm for the auto-segmentation of organs at risk (OARs) based on a deep image-to-image network (DI2IN). MATERIALS/METHODS The AI-Rad Companion Organs RT (AIRC) algorithm (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) uses a two-step approach for segmentation. In the first step, the target organ region in the optimal input image is extracted using a trained deep reinforcement learning network (DRL), which is then used as input to create the contours in the second step based on DI2IN. The study was initially designed as a prospective single-center evaluation. The automated contours generated by AIRC were evaluated by three experienced board-certified radiation oncologists using a four-point scale where 4 is clinically usable and 1 requires re-contouring. After seeing favorable results in a single-center pilot study, we decided to expand the study to six additional institutions, encompassing eight additional evaluators for a total of 11 physician evaluators across seven institutions. RESULTS One hundred and fifty-six patients and 1366 contours were prospectively evaluated. The five most commonly contoured organs were the lung (136 contours, average rating = 4.0), spinal cord (106 contours, average rating = 3.1), eye globe (80 contours, average rating = 3.9), lens (77 contours, average rating = 3.9), and optic nerve (75 contours, average rating = 4.0). The average rating per evaluator per contour was 3.6. On average, 124 contours were evaluated by each evaluator. 65% of the contours were rated as 4, and 31% were rated as 3. Only 4% of contours were rated as 1 or 2. Thirty-three organs were evaluated in the study, with 19 structures having a 3.5 or above average rating (ribs, abdominopelvic cavity, skeleton, larynx, lung, aorta, brachial plexus, lens, eye globe, glottis, heart, parotid glands, bladder, kidneys, supraglottic larynx, submandibular glands, esophagus, optic nerve, oral cavity) and the remaining organs having a rating of 3.0 or greater (female breast, proximal femur, seminal vesicles, rectum, sternum, brainstem, prostate, brain, lips, mandible, liver, optic chiasm, spinal cord, spleen). No organ had an average rating below 3. CONCLUSION AIRC performed well with greater than 95% of contours accepted by treating physicians with no or minor edits. It supported a fully automated workflow with the potential for time savings and increased standardization with the use of AI-powered algorithms for high-quality OAR contouring.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kareem Rayn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, USA
- Varian Medical Systems Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Vibhor Gupta
- American Oncology Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | | | - Ryan Clark
- Varian Medical Systems Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Gokhroo Garima
- American Oncology Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Sushil Beriwal
- Varian Medical Systems Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USA
- Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Brooks C, Miles E, Hoskin PJ. Radiotherapy trial quality assurance processes: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2024; 25:e104-e113. [PMID: 38423056 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00625-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2023] [Revised: 10/05/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
Quality assurance remains a neglected component of many trials, particularly for technical interventions, such as surgery and radiotherapy, for which quality of treatment is an important component in defining outcomes. We aimed to evaluate evidence for the processes used in radiotherapy quality assurance of clinical trials. A systematic review was undertaken focusing on use of a pre-trial outlining benchmark case and subsequent on-trial individual case reviews of outlining for recruited patients. These pre-trial and on-trial checks are used to ensure consistency and standardisation of treatment for each patient recruited to the trial by confirming protocol compliance. Non-adherence to the trial protocol has been shown to have a negative effect on trial outcomes. 29 studies published between January, 2000, and December, 2022, were identified that reported on either outlining benchmark case results or outlining individual case review results, or both. The trials identified varied in their use of radiotherapy quality assurance practices and reporting of outcomes was inconsistent. Deviations from trial protocols were frequent, particularly regarding outlining. Studies correlating benchmark case results with on-trial individual case reviews provided mixed results, meaning firm conclusions could not be drawn regarding the influence of the pre-trial benchmark case on subsequent on-trial performance. The optimal radiotherapy quality assurance processes were unclear, and there was little evidence available. Improved reporting of outcomes from radiotherapy quality assurance programmes is needed to develop an evidence base for the optimal approach to radiotherapy quality assurance in trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chloe Brooks
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), National Institute for Health and Care Research, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
| | - Elizabeth Miles
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), National Institute for Health and Care Research, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - Peter J Hoskin
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre and Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Choi MS, Chang JS, Kim K, Kim JH, Kim TH, Kim S, Cha H, Cho O, Choi JH, Kim M, Kim J, Kim TG, Yeo SG, Chang AR, Ahn SJ, Choi J, Kang KM, Kwon J, Koo T, Kim MY, Choi SH, Jeong BK, Jang BS, Jo IY, Lee H, Kim N, Park HJ, Im JH, Lee SW, Cho Y, Lee SY, Chang JH, Chun J, Lee EM, Kim JS, Shin KH, Kim YB. Assessment of deep learning-based auto-contouring on interobserver consistency in target volume and organs-at-risk delineation for breast cancer: Implications for RTQA program in a multi-institutional study. Breast 2024; 73:103599. [PMID: 37992527 PMCID: PMC10700624 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.103599] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2023] [Revised: 10/30/2023] [Accepted: 11/09/2023] [Indexed: 11/24/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To quantify interobserver variation (IOV) in target volume and organs-at-risk (OAR) contouring across 31 institutions in breast cancer cases and to explore the clinical utility of deep learning (DL)-based auto-contouring in reducing potential IOV. METHODS AND MATERIALS In phase 1, two breast cancer cases were randomly selected and distributed to multiple institutions for contouring six clinical target volumes (CTVs) and eight OAR. In Phase 2, auto-contour sets were generated using a previously published DL Breast segmentation model and were made available for all participants. The difference in IOV of submitted contours in phases 1 and 2 was investigated quantitatively using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). The qualitative analysis involved using contour heat maps to visualize the extent and location of these variations and the required modification. RESULTS Over 800 pairwise comparisons were analysed for each structure in each case. Quantitative phase 2 metrics showed significant improvement in the mean DSC (from 0.69 to 0.77) and HD (from 34.9 to 17.9 mm). Quantitative analysis showed increased interobserver agreement in phase 2, specifically for CTV structures (5-19 %), leading to fewer manual adjustments. Underlying IOV differences causes were reported using a questionnaire and hierarchical clustering analysis based on the volume of CTVs. CONCLUSION DL-based auto-contours improved the contour agreement for OARs and CTVs significantly, both qualitatively and quantitatively, suggesting its potential role in minimizing radiation therapy protocol deviation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Min Seo Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jee Suk Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Kyubo Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin Hee Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Tae Hyung Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nowon Eulji Medical Center, Eulji University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sungmin Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dong-A University Hospital, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyejung Cha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Oyeon Cho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin Hwa Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Myungsoo Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Incheon St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Juree Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ilsan CHA Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Goyang, Republic of Korea
| | - Tae Gyu Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon, Republic of Korea
| | - Seung-Gu Yeo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Bucheon, Republic of Korea
| | - Ah Ram Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung-Ja Ahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Republic of Korea
| | - Jinhyun Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju University College of Medicine, Republic of Korea
| | - Ki Mun Kang
- Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, Republic of Korea
| | - Jeanny Kwon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
| | - Taeryool Koo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Republic of Korea
| | - Mi Young Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Seo Hee Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Republic of Korea
| | - Bae Kwon Jeong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, Republic of Korea
| | - Bum-Sup Jang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - In Young Jo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Cheonan, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyebin Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Nalee Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hae Jin Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jung Ho Im
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
| | - Sea-Won Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Yeona Cho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sun Young Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Ji Hyun Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jaehee Chun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Eung Man Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin Sung Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| | - Kyung Hwan Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| | - Yong Bae Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Aggarwal A, Court LE, Hoskin P, Jacques I, Kroiss M, Laskar S, Lievens Y, Mallick I, Abdul Malik R, Miles E, Mohamad I, Murphy C, Nankivell M, Parkes J, Parmar M, Roach C, Simonds H, Torode J, Vanderstraeten B, Langley R. ARCHERY: a prospective observational study of artificial intelligence-based radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck and prostate cancer - study protocol. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e077253. [PMID: 38149419 PMCID: PMC10711912 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077253] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Accepted: 10/17/2023] [Indexed: 12/28/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy. METHODS ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ajay Aggarwal
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology - MRC CTU at UCL, University College London, London, UK
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - Peter Hoskin
- Department of Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
| | - Isabella Jacques
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology - MRC CTU at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mariana Kroiss
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
| | - Sarbani Laskar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
| | | | - Indranil Mallick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
| | | | - Elizabeth Miles
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
| | | | - Claire Murphy
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology - MRC CTU at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| | - Matthew Nankivell
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology - MRC CTU at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Mahesh Parmar
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology - MRC CTU at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| | - Carol Roach
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology - MRC CTU at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hannah Simonds
- Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
| | | | | | - Ruth Langley
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology - MRC CTU at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kyaw JYA, Rendall A, Gillespie EF, Roques T, Court L, Lievens Y, Tree AC, Frampton C, Aggarwal A. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between Radiation Therapy Treatment Volume and Patient Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:1063-1086. [PMID: 37227363 PMCID: PMC10680429 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.02.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2022] [Revised: 02/15/2023] [Accepted: 02/20/2023] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Evidence of a volume-outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists for radiation therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy at high-volume radiation therapy facilities (HVRFs) versus low-volume facilities (LVRFs). The systematic review used Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used. Absolute effects and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare patient outcomes. RESULTS The search identified 20 studies assessing the association between radiation therapy volume and patient outcomes. Seven of the studies looked at head and neck cancers (HNCs). The remaining studies covered cervical (4), prostate (4), bladder (3), lung (2), anal (2), esophageal (1), brain (2), liver (1), and pancreatic cancer (1). The meta-analysis demonstrated that HVRFs were associated with a lower chance of death compared with LVRFs (pooled HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87- 0.94). HNCs had the strongest evidence of a volume-outcome association for both nasopharyngeal cancer (pooled HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) and nonnasopharyngeal HNC subsites (pooled HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), followed by prostate cancer (pooled HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The remaining cancer types showed weak evidence of an association. The results also demonstrate that some centers defined as HVRFs are undertaking very few procedures per annum (<5 radiation therapy cases per year). CONCLUSIONS An association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes exists for most cancer types. Centralization of radiation therapy services should be considered for cancer types with the strongest volume-outcome association, but the effect on equitable access to services needs to be explicitly considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Alice Rendall
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Tom Roques
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, Norwich, United Kingdom
| | - Laurence Court
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yolande Lievens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital and Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Alison C Tree
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Aleman BMP, Ricardi U, van der Maazen RWM, Meijnders P, Beijert M, Boros A, Izar F, Janus CPM, Levis M, Martin V, Specht L, Corning C, Clementel E, Raemaekers JM, André MP, Federico M, Fortpied C, Girinsky T. A Quality Control Study on Involved Node Radiation Therapy in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Lymphoma Study Association/Fondazione Italiana Linfomi H10 Trial on Stages I and II Hodgkin Lymphoma: Lessons Learned. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:664-674. [PMID: 37179034 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2023] [Revised: 04/29/2023] [Accepted: 05/05/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Involved node radiation therapy (INRT) was introduced in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Lymphoma Study Association/Fondazione Italiana Linfomi H10 trial, a large multicenter trial in early-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma. The present study aimed to evaluate the quality of INRT in this trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS A retrospective, descriptive study was initiated to evaluate INRT in a representative sample encompassing approximately 10% of all irradiated patients in the H10 trial. Sampling was stratified by academic group, year of treatment, size of the treatment center, and treatment arm, and it was done proportional to the size of the strata. The sample was completed for all patients with known recurrences to enable future research on relapse patterns. Radiation therapy principle, target volume delineation and coverage, and applied technique and dose were evaluated using the EORTC Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance platform. Each case was reviewed by 2 reviewers and, in case of disagreement also by an adjudicator for a consensus evaluation. RESULTS Data were retrieved for 66 of 1294 irradiated patients (5.1%). Data collection and analysis were hampered more than anticipated by changes in archiving of diagnostic imaging and treatment planning systems during the running period of the trial. A review could be performed on 61 patients. The INRT principle was applied in 86.6%. Overall, 88.5% of cases were treated according to protocol. Unacceptable variations were predominately due to geographic misses of the target volume delineations. The rate of unacceptable variations decreased during trial recruitment. CONCLUSIONS The principle of INRT was applied in most of the reviewed patients. Almost 90% of the evaluated patients were treated according to the protocol. The present results should, however, be interpreted with caution because the number of patients evaluated was limited. Individual case reviews should be done in a prospective fashion in future trials. Radiation therapy Quality Assurance tailored to the clinical trial objectives is strongly recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Berthe M P Aleman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
| | | | | | - Paul Meijnders
- Department of Radiotherapy, Iridium Network, Centre for Oncological Research of the University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Max Beijert
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Angela Boros
- Radiation Oncology Department, Center Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre Benite, France
| | - Françoise Izar
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut universitaire du cancer de Toulouse, Toulouse, France
| | - Cécile P M Janus
- Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mario Levis
- Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Valentine Martin
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Lena Specht
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Coreen Corning
- The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Enrico Clementel
- The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - John M Raemaekers
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, Netherlands
| | - Marc P André
- Department of Hematology, CHU UCL Namur, Yvoir, Belgium
| | - Massimo Federico
- CHIMOMO Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Catherine Fortpied
- The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Theodore Girinsky
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Wang H, Chen Y, Wang L, Liu Q, Yang S, Wang C. Advancing herbal medicine: enhancing product quality and safety through robust quality control practices. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1265178. [PMID: 37818188 PMCID: PMC10561302 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1265178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2023] [Accepted: 09/15/2023] [Indexed: 10/12/2023] Open
Abstract
This manuscript provides an in-depth review of the significance of quality control in herbal medication products, focusing on its role in maintaining efficiency and safety. With a historical foundation in traditional medicine systems, herbal remedies have gained widespread popularity as natural alternatives to conventional treatments. However, the increasing demand for these products necessitates stringent quality control measures to ensure consistency and safety. This comprehensive review explores the importance of quality control methods in monitoring various aspects of herbal product development, manufacturing, and distribution. Emphasizing the need for standardized processes, the manuscript delves into the detection and prevention of contaminants, the authentication of herbal ingredients, and the adherence to regulatory standards. Additionally, it highlights the integration of traditional knowledge and modern scientific approaches in achieving optimal quality control outcomes. By emphasizing the role of quality control in herbal medicine, this manuscript contributes to promoting consumer trust, safeguarding public health, and fostering the responsible use of herbal medication products.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hongting Wang
- Anhui Provincial Engineering Laboratory for Screening and Re-evaluation of Active Compounds of Herbal Medicines in Southern Anhui, Anhui Provincial Engineering Research Center for Polysaccharide Drugs, Anhui Innovative Center for Drug Basic Research of Metabolic Diseases, School of Pharmacy, Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, China
| | | | | | | | | | - Cunqin Wang
- Anhui Provincial Engineering Laboratory for Screening and Re-evaluation of Active Compounds of Herbal Medicines in Southern Anhui, Anhui Provincial Engineering Research Center for Polysaccharide Drugs, Anhui Innovative Center for Drug Basic Research of Metabolic Diseases, School of Pharmacy, Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, China
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kelly SM, Turcas A, Corning C, Bailey S, Cañete A, Clementel E, di Cataldo A, Dieckmann K, Gaze MN, Horan G, Jenney M, Ladenstein R, Padovani L, Valteau-Couanet D, Boterberg T, Mandeville H. Radiotherapy quality assurance in paediatric clinical trials: first report from six QUARTET-affiliated trials. Radiother Oncol 2023; 182:109549. [PMID: 36828140 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109549] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Revised: 02/02/2023] [Accepted: 02/04/2023] [Indexed: 02/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE SIOP Europe's QUARTET project launched in 2016; aiming to improve access to high-quality radiotherapy for children and adolescents treated within clinical trials across Europe. The aim of this report is to present the profile of institutions participating in six QUARTET-affiliated trials and a description of the initial individual case review (ICR) outcomes. METHODS This is a two-part analysis. Firstly, using facility questionnaires, beam output audit certificates, and advanced technique credentialing records to create a profile of approved institutions, and secondly, collating trial records for ICRs submitted prior to 31/10/2022. Trials included are: SIOPEN HR-NBL1, SIOPEN-LINES, SIOPEN- VERITAS, SIOP-BTG HRMB, EpSSG-FaR-RMS, and SIOPEN HR-NBL2. RESULTS By 31/10/2022, a total of 103 institutions had commenced QUARTET site approval procedures to participate in QUARTET-affiliated trials; 66 sites across 20 countries were approved. These participating institutions were often paediatric referral sites with intensity modulated radiotherapy or proton beam therapy, designated paediatric radiation oncologists, and paediatric adapted facilities and imaging protocols available. In total, 263 patient plans were submitted for ICR, 254 ICRs from 15 countries were completed. ICRs had a rejection rate of 39.8%, taking an average of 1.4 submissions until approval was achieved. Target delineation was the most frequent reason for rejection. CONCLUSION The QUARTET facility questionnaire is a valuable tool for mapping resources, personnel, and technology available to children and adolescents receiving radiotherapy. Prospective ICR is essential for paediatric oncology clinical trials and should be prioritised to reduce protocol violations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah M Kelly
- The European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP Europe), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium; European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Andrada Turcas
- The European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP Europe), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium; European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Oncology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Iuliu Hatieganu" Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Coreen Corning
- European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Simon Bailey
- Newcastle Cancer Centre, Newcastle University and Great North Children's Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Adela Cañete
- Pediatric Oncohematology Unit, University and Polytechnic la Fe Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, University of Valencia, Spain
| | - Enrico Clementel
- European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Andrea di Cataldo
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Unit of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - Karin Dieckmann
- Children's Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children's Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mark N Gaze
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Gail Horan
- Oncology Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Meriel Jenney
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Children's Hospital for Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Ruth Ladenstein
- Children's Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children's Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Laetitia Padovani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France
| | | | - Tom Boterberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Henry Mandeville
- The European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP Europe), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium; The Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Groendahl AR, Huynh BN, Tomic O, Søvik Å, Dale E, Malinen E, Skogmo HK, Futsaether CM. Automatic gross tumor segmentation of canine head and neck cancer using deep learning and cross-species transfer learning. Front Vet Sci 2023; 10:1143986. [PMID: 37026102 PMCID: PMC10070749 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1143986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2023] [Accepted: 03/01/2023] [Indexed: 04/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Radiotherapy (RT) is increasingly being used on dogs with spontaneous head and neck cancer (HNC), which account for a large percentage of veterinary patients treated with RT. Accurate definition of the gross tumor volume (GTV) is a vital part of RT planning, ensuring adequate dose coverage of the tumor while limiting the radiation dose to surrounding tissues. Currently the GTV is contoured manually in medical images, which is a time-consuming and challenging task. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability of deep learning-based automatic segmentation of the GTV in canine patients with HNC. Materials and methods Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images and corresponding manual GTV contours of 36 canine HNC patients and 197 human HNC patients were included. A 3D U-Net convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to automatically segment the GTV in canine patients using two main approaches: (i) training models from scratch based solely on canine CT images, and (ii) using cross-species transfer learning where models were pretrained on CT images of human patients and then fine-tuned on CT images of canine patients. For the canine patients, automatic segmentations were assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (Dice), the positive predictive value, the true positive rate, and surface distance metrics, calculated from a four-fold cross-validation strategy where each fold was used as a validation set and test set once in independent model runs. Results CNN models trained from scratch on canine data or by using transfer learning obtained mean test set Dice scores of 0.55 and 0.52, respectively, indicating acceptable auto-segmentations, similar to the mean Dice performances reported for CT-based automatic segmentation in human HNC studies. Automatic segmentation of nasal cavity tumors appeared particularly promising, resulting in mean test set Dice scores of 0.69 for both approaches. Conclusion In conclusion, deep learning-based automatic segmentation of the GTV using CNN models based on canine data only or a cross-species transfer learning approach shows promise for future application in RT of canine HNC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aurora Rosvoll Groendahl
- Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Bao Ngoc Huynh
- Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Oliver Tomic
- Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Data Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Åste Søvik
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Companion Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Einar Dale
- Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Eirik Malinen
- Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Medical Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Hege Kippenes Skogmo
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Companion Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Cecilia Marie Futsaether
- Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
- *Correspondence: Cecilia Marie Futsaether
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Kelly SM, Effeney R, Gaze MN, Bernier-Chastagner V, Blondeel A, Clementel E, Corning C, Dieckmann K, Essiaf S, Gandola L, Janssens GO, Kearns PR, Lacombe D, Lassen-Ramshad Y, Merks H, Miles E, Padovani L, Scarzello G, Schwarz R, Timmermann B, van Rijn RR, Vassal G, Boterberg T, Mandeville HC. QUARTET: A SIOP Europe project for quality and excellence in radiotherapy and imaging for children and adolescents with cancer. Eur J Cancer 2022; 172:209-220. [PMID: 35780527 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.05.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2022] [Revised: 05/20/2022] [Accepted: 05/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
The European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) Radiation Oncology Working Group presents the QUARTET Project: a centralised quality assurance programme designed to standardise care and improve the quality of radiotherapy and imaging for international clinical trials recruiting children and adolescents with cancer throughout Europe. QUARTET combines the paediatric radiation oncology expertise of SIOPE with the infrastructure and experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer to deliver radiotherapy quality assurance programmes for large, prospective, international clinical trials. QUARTET-affiliated trials include children and adolescents with brain tumours, neuroblastoma, sarcomas including rhabdomyosarcoma, and renal tumours including Wilms' tumour. With nine prospective clinical trials and two retrospective studies within the active portfolio in March 2022, QUARTET will collect one of the largest repositories of paediatric radiotherapy and imaging data, support the clinical assessment of radiotherapy, and evaluate the role and benefit of radiotherapy quality assurance for this cohort of patients within the context of clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah M Kelly
- European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium; The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Avenue E. Mounier 83, Brussels, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Rachel Effeney
- European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium; The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Avenue E. Mounier 83, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Mark N Gaze
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, United Kingdom
| | | | - Anne Blondeel
- European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Enrico Clementel
- The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Avenue E. Mounier 83, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Coreen Corning
- The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Avenue E. Mounier 83, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Karin Dieckmann
- Children's Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Kinderkrebsforschung, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Samira Essiaf
- European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Lorenza Gandola
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS-Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Geert O Janssens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Pamela R Kearns
- European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium; Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Services, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Denis Lacombe
- The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Avenue E. Mounier 83, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Hans Merks
- Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Elizabeth Miles
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance (RTTQA) Group, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, United Kingdom
| | - Laetitia Padovani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France
| | - Giovanni Scarzello
- Radiation Therapy Department, Veneto Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Padua, Italy
| | - Rudolf Schwarz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, D 20246 Hamburg Germany
| | - Beate Timmermann
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), Germany; German Consortium for Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), Essen, Germany
| | - Rick R van Rijn
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Emma Children's Hospital - Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gilles Vassal
- European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE), Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Pediatric Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Tom Boterberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
| | - Henry C Mandeville
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden Hospital and the Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Katsoulakis E, Kudner R, Chapman C, Park J, Puckett L, Solanki A, Kapoor R, Hagan M, Kelly M, Palta J, Tishler R, Hitchcock Y, Chera B, Feygelman V, Walker G, Sher D, Kujundzic K, Wilson E, Dawes S, Yom SS, Harrison L. Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Head and Neck Cancer with an emphasis on Oropharyngeal and Laryngeal Cancer from the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel. Pract Radiat Oncol 2022; 12:409-423. [PMID: 35667551 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 05/09/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Safeguarding high-quality care using evidence-based radiation therapy for patients with head and neck cancer is crucial to improving oncologic outcomes, including survival and quality of life. METHODS AND MATERIALS The Veterans Administration (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program (VAROQS) to develop clinical quality measures (QM) in head and neck cancer. As part of the development of QM, the VA commissioned, along with the American Society for Radiation Oncology, a blue-ribbon panel comprising experts in head and neck cancer, to develop QM. RESULTS We describe the methods used to develop QM and the final consensus QM, as well as aspirational and surveillance QM, which capture all aspects of the continuum of patient care from initial patient work-up, radiation treatment planning and delivery, and follow-up care, as well as dose volume constraints. CONCLUSION These QM are intended for use as part of ongoing quality surveillance for veterans receiving radiation therapy throughout the VA as well as outside the VA. They may also be used by the non-VA community as a basic measure of quality care for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evangelia Katsoulakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Health care System, Tampa, Florida.
| | - Randi Kudner
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | | | - John Park
- University of Missouri Kansas City and Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri
| | - Lindsay Puckett
- Medical College of Wisconsin and Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Abhi Solanki
- Hines VA Medical Center and Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Rishabh Kapoor
- Virginia Commonwealth University and Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Michael Hagan
- VHA National Radiation Oncology Program Office, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Maria Kelly
- VHA National Radiation Oncology Program Office, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Jatinder Palta
- Virginia Commonwealth University and Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia; VHA National Radiation Oncology Program Office, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Roy Tishler
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Emily Wilson
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | - Samantha Dawes
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | - Sue S Yom
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hoffmann L, Persson G, Nygård L, Nielsen T, Borrisova S, Gaard-Petersen F, Josipovic M, Khalil A, Kjeldsen R, Knap M, Kristiansen C, Møller D, Ottosson W, Sand H, Thing R, Pøhl M, Schytte T. Thorough design and pre-trial quality assurance (QA) decrease dosimetric impact of delineation and dose planning variability in the STRICTLUNG and STARLUNG trials for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of central and ultra-central lung tumours. Radiother Oncol 2022; 171:53-61. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.04.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2021] [Revised: 03/28/2022] [Accepted: 04/05/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
16
|
Harrison K, Pullen H, Welsh C, Oktay O, Alvarez-Valle J, Jena R. Machine Learning for Auto-Segmentation in Radiotherapy Planning. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022; 34:74-88. [PMID: 34996682 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2021] [Revised: 11/27/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Manual segmentation of target structures and organs at risk is a crucial step in the radiotherapy workflow. It has the disadvantages that it can require several hours of clinician time per patient and is prone to inter- and intra-observer variability. Automatic segmentation (auto-segmentation), using computer algorithms, seeks to address these issues. Advances in machine learning and computer vision have led to the development of methods for accurate and efficient auto-segmentation. This review surveys auto-segmentation techniques and applications in radiotherapy planning. It provides an overview of traditional approaches to auto-segmentation, including intensity analysis, shape modelling and atlas-based methods. The focus, though, is on uses of machine learning and deep learning, including convolutional neural networks. Finally, the future of machine-learning-driven auto-segmentation in clinical settings is considered, and the barriers that must be overcome for it to be widely accepted into routine practice are highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Harrison
- Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | - H Pullen
- Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - C Welsh
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - O Oktay
- Health Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - R Jena
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Groendahl AR, Moe YM, Kaushal CK, Huynh BN, Rusten E, Tomic O, Hernes E, Hanekamp B, Undseth C, Guren MG, Malinen E, Futsaether CM. Deep learning-based automatic delineation of anal cancer gross tumour volume: a multimodality comparison of CT, PET and MRI. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:89-96. [PMID: 34783610 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.1994645] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate target volume delineation is a prerequisite for high-precision radiotherapy. However, manual delineation is resource-demanding and prone to interobserver variation. An automatic delineation approach could potentially save time and increase delineation consistency. In this study, the applicability of deep learning for fully automatic delineation of the gross tumour volume (GTV) in patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) was evaluated for the first time. An extensive comparison of the effects single modality and multimodality combinations of computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have on automatic delineation quality was conducted. MATERIAL AND METHODS 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) images were collected for 86 patients with ASCC. A subset of 36 patients also underwent a study-specific 3T MRI examination including T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. The resulting two datasets were analysed separately. A two-dimensional U-Net convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to delineate the GTV in axial image slices based on single or multimodality image input. Manual GTV delineations constituted the ground truth for CNN model training and evaluation. Models were evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (Dice) and surface distance metrics computed from five-fold cross-validation. RESULTS CNN-generated automatic delineations demonstrated good agreement with the ground truth, resulting in mean Dice scores of 0.65-0.76 and 0.74-0.83 for the 86 and 36-patient datasets, respectively. For both datasets, the highest mean Dice scores were obtained using a multimodal combination of PET and ceCT (0.76-0.83). However, models based on single modality ceCT performed comparably well (0.74-0.81). T2W-only models performed acceptably but were somewhat inferior to the PET/ceCT and ceCT-based models. CONCLUSION CNNs provided high-quality automatic GTV delineations for both single and multimodality image input, indicating that deep learning may prove a versatile tool for target volume delineation in future patients with ASCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Yngve Mardal Moe
- Faculty of Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | | | - Bao Ngoc Huynh
- Faculty of Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Espen Rusten
- Department of Medical Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Oliver Tomic
- Faculty of Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Eivor Hernes
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Bettina Hanekamp
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Marianne Grønlie Guren
- Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Eirik Malinen
- Department of Medical Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Corrigan KL, Kry S, Howell RM, Kouzy R, Jaoude JA, Patel RR, Jhingran A, Taniguchi C, Koong AC, McAleer MF, Nitsch P, Rödel C, Fokas E, Minsky BD, Das P, Fuller CD, Ludmir EB. The radiotherapy quality assurance gap among phase III cancer clinical trials. Radiother Oncol 2022; 166:51-57. [PMID: 34838891 PMCID: PMC8900671 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.11.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2021] [Revised: 11/14/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Quality assurance (QA) practices improve the quality level of oncology trials by ensuring that the protocol is followed and the results are valid and reproducible. This study investigated the utilization of QA among randomized controlled trials that involve radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in February 2020 for all phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). These trials were screened for RT-specific RCTs that had published primary trial results. Information regarding QA in each trial was collected from the study publications and trial protocol if available. Two individuals independently performed trial screening and data collection. Pearson's Chi-square tests analyses were used to assess factors that were associated with QA inclusion in RT trials. RESULTS Forty-two RCTs with RT as the primary intervention or as a mandatory component of the protocol were analyzed; the earliest was started in 1994 and one trial was still active though not recruiting. Twenty-nine (69%) trials mandated RT quality assurance (RTQA) practices as part of the trial protocol, with 19 (45%) trials requiring institutional credentialing. Twenty-one (50%) trials published protocol deviation outcomes. Clinical trials involving advanced radiation techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SRS, SBRT) did not include more RTQA than trials without these advanced techniques (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.55). Trials that reported protocol deviation outcomes were associated with mandating RTQA in their protocols as compared to trials that did not report these outcomes (100% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS There is a lack of RTQA utilization and transparency in RT clinical trials. It is imperative for RT trials to include increased QA for safe, consistent, and high-quality RT planning and delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelsey L. Corrigan
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030,
| | - Stephen Kry
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Rebecca M. Howell
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Ramez Kouzy
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Joseph Abi Jaoude
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Roshal R. Patel
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Anuja Jhingran
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Cullen Taniguchi
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Albert C. Koong
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Mary Fran McAleer
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Paige Nitsch
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Claus Rödel
- University of Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany,German Cancer Research Center, 69120 Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany,German Cancer Consortium, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany,Frankfurt Cancer Institute, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Emmanouil Fokas
- University of Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany,German Cancer Research Center, 69120 Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, Heidelberg, Germany,German Cancer Consortium, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany,Frankfurt Cancer Institute, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Bruce D. Minsky
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Prajnan Das
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - C. David Fuller
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
| | - Ethan B. Ludmir
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, USA, 77030,Corresponding Author: Ethan B. Ludmir, M.D., 1400 Pressler St., Unit 1422, Houston TX, USA 77030, Phone: 832-729-0998,
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Evaluation of the impact of teaching on delineation variation during a virtual stereotactic ablative radiotherapy contouring workshop. JOURNAL OF RADIOTHERAPY IN PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1017/s1460396921000583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction:
Variation in delineation of target volumes/organs at risk (OARs) is well recognised in radiotherapy and may be reduced by several methods including teaching. We evaluated the impact of teaching on contouring variation for thoracic/pelvic stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) during a virtual contouring workshop.
Materials and methods:
Target volume/OAR contours produced by workshop participants for three cases were evaluated against reference contours using DICE similarity coefficient (DSC) and line domain error (LDE) metrics. Pre- and post-workshop DSC results were compared using Wilcoxon signed ranks test to determine the impact of teaching during the workshop.
Results:
Of 50 workshop participants, paired pre- and post-workshop contours were available for 21 (42%), 20 (40%) and 22 (44%) participants for primary lung cancer, pelvic bone metastasis and pelvic node metastasis cases, respectively. Statistically significant improvements post-workshop in median DSC and LDE results were observed for 6 (50%) and 7 (58%) of 12 structures, respectively, although the magnitude of DSC/LDE improvement was modest in most cases. An increase in median DSC post-workshop ≥0·05 was only observed for GTVbone, IGTVlung and SacralPlex, and reduction in median LDE > 1 mm was only observed for GTVbone, CTVbone and SacralPlex. Post-workshop, median DSC values were >0·7 for 75% of structures. For 92% of the structures, post-workshop contours were considered to be acceptable or within acceptable variation following review by the workshop faculty.
Conclusions:
This study has demonstrated that virtual SABR contouring training is feasible and was associated with some improvements in contouring variation for multiple target volumes/OARs.
Collapse
|
20
|
Charlier F, Descamps T, Lievens Y, Geets X, Remouchamps V, Lambrecht M, Moretti L. ProCaLung - Peer review in stage III, mediastinal node-positive, non-small-cell lung cancer: How to benchmark clinical practice of nodal target volume definition and delineation in Belgium ☆. Radiother Oncol 2021; 167:57-64. [PMID: 34890738 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.11.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2021] [Revised: 11/24/2021] [Accepted: 11/30/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Quality Assurance project for stage III non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy ProCaLung performed a multicentric two-step exercise evaluating mediastinal nodal Target Volume Definition and Delineation (TVD) variability and the opportunity for standardization. The TVD variability before and after providing detailed guidelines and the value of qualitative contour reviewing before applying quantitative measures were investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS The case of a patient with stage III NSCLC and involved mediastinal lymph nodes was used as a basis for this study. Twenty-two radiation oncologists from nineteen centers in Belgium and Luxembourg participated in at least one of two phases of the project (before and after introduction of ProCaLung contouring guidelines). The resulting thirty-three mediastinal nodal GTV and CTV contours were then evaluated using a qualitative-before-quantitative (QBQ) approach. First, a qualitative analysis was performed, evaluating adherence to most recent guidelines. From this, a list of observed deviations was created and these were used to evaluate contour conformity. The second analysis was quantitative, using overlap and surface distance measures to compare contours within qualitative groups and between phases. A 'most robust' reference volume for these analyses was created using the STAPLE-algorithm and an averaging method. RESULTS Five GTV and seven CTV qualitative groups were identified. Second step contours were more often in higher-conformity groups (p = 0.012 for GTV and p = 0.024 for CTV). Median Residual Mean Square Distances improved from 2.34 mm to 1.36 mm for GTV (p = 0.01) and from 4.53 mm to 1.58 mm for CTV (p < 0.0001). Median Dice coefficients increased from 0.81 to 0.84 for GTV (p = 0.07) and from 0.82 to 0.89 for CTV (p ≤ 0.001). Using HC-contours only to generate references translated in more robust quantitative evaluations. CONCLUSION Variability of mediastinal nodal TVD was reduced after providing the ProCaLung consensus guidelines. A qualitative review was essential for providing meaningful quantitative measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Charlier
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Thomas Descamps
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Yolande Lievens
- Radiation Oncology Department, Ghent University Hospital and Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Xavier Geets
- Radiation Oncology Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Vincent Remouchamps
- Radiation Oncology Department, CHU UCL Namur - site Sainte Elisabeth, Namur, Belgium
| | - Maarten Lambrecht
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium
| | - Luigi Moretti
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Piazzese C, Evans E, Thomas B, Staffurth J, Gwynne S, Spezi E. FIELD RT: an open-source platform for the assessment of target volume delineation in radiation therapy. Br J Radiol 2021; 94:20210356. [PMID: 34289317 PMCID: PMC9328049 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210356] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: Target volume delineation (TVD) has been identified as a weakness in the accuracy of radiotherapy, both within and outside of clinical trials due to the intra/interobserver variations affecting the TVD quality. Sources of variations such as poor compliance or protocol violation may have adverse effect on treatment outcomes. In this paper, we present and describe the FIELDRT software developed for the ARENA project to improve the quality of TVD through qualitative and quantitative feedbacks and individual and personalized summary of trainee”s performance. Methods: For each site-specific clinical case included in the FIELDRT software, reference volumes, minimum and maximum “acceptable” volumes and organ at risk were derived by outlines of consultants and senior trainees. The software components currently developed include: (a) user-friendly importing interface (b) analysis toolbox to compute quantitative and qualitative (c) visualiser and (d) structured report generator for personalised feedback. The FIELDRT software was validated by comparing the performance of 63 trainees and by measuring performance over time. In addition, a trainee evaluation day was held in 2019 to collect feedback on FIELDRT. Results: Results show the trainees’ improvement when reoutlining a case after reviewing the feedback generated from the FIELDRT software. Comments and feedback received after evaluation day were positive and confirmed that FIELDRT can be a useful application for training purposes. Conclusion: We presented a new open-source software to support education in TVD and ongoing continuous professional development for clinical oncology trainees and consultants. ARENA in combination with FIELDRT implements site-specific modules with reference target and organs at risk volumes and automatically evaluates individual performance using several quantitative and qualitative feedbacks. Pilot results suggests this software could be used as an education tool to reduce variation in TVD so to guarantee high quality in radiotherapy. Advances in knowledge: FIELDRT is a new easy and free to use software aiming at supporting education in TVD and ongoing continuous professional development. The software provides quantitative/qualitative feedback and an exportable report with an individual and personalised summary of trainee’s performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Concetta Piazzese
- University of Huddersfield, School of Computing & Engineering, Huddersfield, UK.,Cardiff University, School of Engineering, Cardiff, UK.,Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - Elin Evans
- Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - Betsan Thomas
- Clinical Oncology, South West Wales Cancer Centre, Swansea, UK
| | | | - Sarah Gwynne
- Clinical Oncology, South West Wales Cancer Centre, Swansea, UK
| | - Emiliano Spezi
- Cardiff University, School of Engineering, Cardiff, UK.,Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Leonardi MC, Pepa M, Gugliandolo SG, Luraschi R, Vigorito S, Rojas DP, La Porta MR, Cante D, Petrucci E, Marino L, Borzì G, Ippolito E, Marrocco M, Huscher A, Chieregato M, Argenone A, Iadanza L, De Rose F, Lobefalo F, Cucciarelli F, Valenti M, De Santis MC, Cavallo A, Rossi F, Russo S, Prisco A, Guernieri M, Guarnaccia R, Malatesta T, Meaglia I, Liotta M, Tabarelli de Fatis P, Palumbo I, Marcantonini M, Colangione SP, Mezzenga E, Falivene S, Mormile M, Ravo V, Arrichiello C, Fozza A, Barbero MP, Ivaldi GB, Catalano G, Vidali C, Aristei C, Giannitto C, Miglietta E, Ciabattoni A, Meattini I, Orecchia R, Cattani F, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Geometric contour variation in clinical target volume of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer radiotherapy: an AIRO multi-institutional study. Br J Radiol 2021; 94:20201177. [PMID: 33882239 PMCID: PMC8248216 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2020] [Revised: 12/23/2020] [Accepted: 01/25/2021] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine interobserver variability in axillary nodal contouring in breast cancer (BC) radiotherapy (RT) by comparing the clinical target volume of participating single centres (SC-CTV) with a gold-standard CTV (GS-CTV). METHODS The GS-CTV of three patients (P1, P2, P3) with increasing complexity was created in DICOM format from the median contour of axillary CTVs drawn by BC experts, validated using the simultaneous truth and performance-level estimation and peer-reviewed. GS-CTVs were compared with the correspondent SC-CTVs drawn by radiation oncologists, using validated metrics and a total score (TS) integrating all of them. RESULTS Eighteen RT centres participated in the study. Comparative analyses revealed that, on average, the SC-CTVs were smaller than GS-CTV for P1 and P2 (by -29.25% and -27.83%, respectively) and larger for P3 (by +12.53%). The mean Jaccard index was greater for P1 and P2 compared to P3, but the overlap extent value was around 0.50 or less. Regarding nodal levels, L4 showed the highest concordance with the GS. In the intra-patient comparison, L2 and L3 achieved lower TS than L4. Nodal levels showed discrepancy with GS, which was not statistically significant for P1, and negligible for P2, while P3 had the worst agreement. DICE similarity coefficient did not exceed the minimum threshold for agreement of 0.70 in all the measurements. CONCLUSIONS Substantial differences were observed between SC- and GS-CTV, especially for P3 with altered arm setup. L2 and L3 were the most critical levels. The study highlighted these key points to address. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE The present study compares, by means of validated geometric indexes, manual segmentations of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer from different observers and different institutions made on radiotherapy planning CT images. Assessing such variability is of paramount importance, as geometric uncertainties might lead to incorrect dosimetry and compromise oncological outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Matteo Pepa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Rosa Luraschi
- Unit of Medical Physics, IEO Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | - Sabrina Vigorito
- Unit of Medical Physics, IEO Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | | | | | - Domenico Cante
- Radiotherapy Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea Community Hospital, Ivrea, Italy
| | - Edoardo Petrucci
- Unit of Medical Physics, ASL TO4 Ivrea Community Hospital, Ivrea, Italy
| | - Lorenza Marino
- Radiotherapy Unit, REM Radioterapia, Viagrande (CT), Italy
| | - Giuseppina Borzì
- Unit of Medical Physics, REM Radioterapia, Viagrande (CT), Italy
| | - Edy Ippolito
- Department of Radiotherapy, Campus Bio-Medico University, Roma, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Angela Argenone
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera di Rilievo Nazionale San Pio, Benevento, Italy
| | - Luciano Iadanza
- Unit of Medical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliera di Rilievo Nazionale San Pio, Benevento, italy
| | - Fiorenza De Rose
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | - Francesca Lobefalo
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | - Francesca Cucciarelli
- Department of Internal Medicine, Radiotherapy Institute, Ospedali Riuniti Umberto I, G.M. Lancisi, G. Salesi, Ancona, Italy
| | - Marco Valenti
- Unit of Medical Physics, Ospedali Riuniti Umberto I, G.M. Lancisi, G. Salesi, Ancona, Italy
| | | | - Anna Cavallo
- Unit of Medical Physics, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Francesca Rossi
- Radiotherapy Unit, Usl Toscana Centro, Ospedale Santa Maria Annunziata, Firenze, Italy
| | - Serenella Russo
- Unit of Medical Physics, Usl Toscana Centro, Ospedale Santa Maria Annunziata, Firenze, Italy
| | - Agnese Prisco
- Department of Radiotherapy, ASUFC - P.O. “ Santa Maria della Misericordia” di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Marika Guernieri
- Unit of Medical Physics, ASUFC - P.O. “ Santa Maria della Misericordia” di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Roberta Guarnaccia
- Radiotherapy Unit, Ospedale Fatebenefratelli Isola Tiberina, Roma, Italy
| | - Tiziana Malatesta
- Unit of Medical Physics, Ospedale Fatebenefratelli Isola Tiberina, Roma, Italy
| | - Ilaria Meaglia
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Pavia, Italy
| | - Marco Liotta
- Medical Physics Unit, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - Isabella Palumbo
- Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | | | - Sarah Pia Colangione
- Radiotherapy Unit, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, Meldola, Italy
| | - Emilio Mezzenga
- Medical Physics Unit, IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola (FC), Italy
| | - Sara Falivene
- Department of Radiotherapy, ASL Napoli 1 Centro - Ospedale del Mare, Napoli, Italy
| | - Maria Mormile
- Unit of Medical Physics, ASL Napoli 1 Centro - Ospedale del Mare, Napoli, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Ravo
- Unit of Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - Cecilia Arrichiello
- Unit of Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - Alessandra Fozza
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy
| | - Maria Paola Barbero
- Unit of Medical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy
| | | | - Gianpiero Catalano
- Department of Radiotherapy, IRCCS MultiMedica, Sesto San Giovanni (MI), Italy
| | - Cristiana Vidali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Trieste (ASUI-TS), Trieste, Italy
| | - Cynthia Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - Caterina Giannitto
- Division of Radiology, IEO Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | - Eleonora Miglietta
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | | | | | - Roberto Orecchia
- Scientific Direction, IEO Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | - Federica Cattani
- Unit of Medical Physics, IEO Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Stelmes JJ, Vu E, Grégoire V, Simon C, Clementel E, Kazmierska J, Grant W, Ozsahin M, Tomsej M, Vieillevigne L, Fortpied C, Hurkmans EC, Branquinho A, Andratschke N, Zimmermann F, Weber DC. Quality assurance of radiotherapy in the ongoing EORTC 1420 "Best of" trial for early stage oropharyngeal, supraglottic and hypopharyngeal carcinoma: results of the benchmark case procedure. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:81. [PMID: 33933118 PMCID: PMC8088557 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01809-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2021] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The current phase III EORTC 1420 Best-of trial (NCT02984410) compares the swallowing function after transoral surgery versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (RT) in patients with early-stage carcinoma of the oropharynx, supraglottis and hypopharynx. We report the analysis of the Benchmark Case (BC) procedures before patient recruitment with special attention to dysphagia/aspiration related structures (DARS). MATERIALS AND METHODS Submitted RT volumes and plans from participating centers were analyzed and compared against the gold-standard expert delineations and dose distributions. Descriptive analysis of protocol deviations was conducted. Mean Sorensen-Dice similarity index (mDSI) and Hausdorff distance (mHD) were applied to evaluate the inter-observer variability (IOV). RESULTS 65% (23/35) of the institutions needed more than one submission to achieve Quality assurance (RTQA) clearance. OAR volume delineations were the cause for rejection in 53% (40/76) of cases. IOV could be improved in 5 out of 12 OARs by more than 10 mm after resubmission (mHD). Despite this, final IOV for critical OARs in delineation remained significant among DARS by choosing an aleatory threshold of 0.7 (mDSI) and 15 mm (mHD). CONCLUSIONS This is to our knowledge the largest BC analysis among Head and neck RTQA programs performed in the framework of a prospective trial. Benchmarking identified non-common OARs and target delineations errors as the main source of deviations and IOV could be reduced in a significant number of cases after this process. Due to the substantial resources involved with benchmarking, future benchmark analyses should assess fully the impact on patients' clinical outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J-J Stelmes
- Radiation Oncology Department, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Via Athos Gallino 12, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
| | - E Vu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
| | | | - C Simon
- Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | | | | | - W Grant
- Gloucestershire Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK
| | - M Ozsahin
- Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - M Tomsej
- Hospital of Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - A Branquinho
- Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal
| | | | - F Zimmermann
- University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - D-C Weber
- University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Paul-Scherrer-Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Mercieca S, Belderbos JSA, van Herk M. Challenges in the target volume definition of lung cancer radiotherapy. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2021; 10:1983-1998. [PMID: 34012808 PMCID: PMC8107734 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-20-627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Radiotherapy, with or without systemic treatment has an important role in the management of lung cancer. In order to deliver the treatment accurately, the clinician must precisely outline the gross tumour volume (GTV), mostly on computed tomography (CT) images. However, due to the limited contrast between tumour and non-malignant changes in the lung tissue, it can be difficult to distinguish the tumour boundaries on CT images leading to large interobserver variation and differences in interpretation. Therefore the definition of the GTV has often been described as the weakest link in radiotherapy with its inaccuracy potentially leading to missing the tumour or unnecessarily irradiating normal tissue. In this article, we review the various techniques that can be used to reduce delineation uncertainties in lung cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan Mercieca
- Faculty of Health Science, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.,The University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - José S A Belderbos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marcel van Herk
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Lewis P, Court L, Lievens Y, Aggarwal A. Structure and Processes of Existing Practice in Radiotherapy Peer Review: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:248-260. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.10.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2020] [Revised: 08/04/2020] [Accepted: 10/20/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
26
|
Thomas M, Mortensen HR, Hoffmann L, Møller DS, Troost EGC, Muijs CT, Berbee M, Bütof R, Nicholas O, Radhakrishna G, Defraene G, Nafteux P, Nordsmark M, Haustermans K. Proposal for the delineation of neoadjuvant target volumes in oesophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol 2020; 156:102-112. [PMID: 33285194 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.11.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2020] [Revised: 11/25/2020] [Accepted: 11/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To define instructions for delineation of target volumes in the neoadjuvant setting in oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Radiation oncologists of five European centres participated in the following consensus process: [1] revision of published (MEDLINE) and national/institutional delineation guidelines; [2] first delineation round of five cases (patient 1-5) according to national/institutional guidelines; [3] consensus meeting to discuss the results of step 1 and 2, followed by a target volume delineation proposal; [4] circulation of proposed instructions for target volume delineation and atlas for feedback; [5] second delineation round of five new cases (patient 6-10) to peer review and validate (two additional centres) the agreed delineation guidelines and atlas; [6] final consensus on the delineation guidelines depicted in an atlas. Target volumes of the delineation rounds were compared between centres by Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and maximum/mean undirected Hausdorff distances (Hmax/Hmean). RESULTS In the first delineation round, the consistency between centres was moderate (CTVtotal: DSC = 0.59-0.88; Hmean = 0.2-0.4 cm). Delineations in the second round were much more consistent. Lowest variability was obtained between centres participating in the consensus meeting (CTVtotal: DSC: p < 0.050 between rounds for patients 6/7/8/10; Hmean: p < 0.050 for patients 7/8/10), compared to validation centres (CTVtotal: DSC: p < 0.050 between validation and consensus meeting centres for patients 6/7/8; Hmean: p < 0.050 for patients 7/10). A proposal for delineation of target volumes and an atlas were generated. CONCLUSION We proposed instructions for target volume delineation and an atlas for the neoadjuvant radiation treatment in oesophageal cancer. These will enable a more uniform delineation of patients in clinical practice and clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa Thomas
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Belgium; University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Belgium.
| | - Hanna R Mortensen
- Aarhus University Hospital, Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Denmark
| | - Lone Hoffmann
- Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Oncology, Denmark
| | - Ditte S Møller
- Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Oncology, Denmark
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, and Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany; Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany
| | - Christina T Muijs
- University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands
| | - Maaike Berbee
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, the Netherlands
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, and Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany
| | - Owen Nicholas
- Swansea NHS Trust, Department of Clinical Oncology, Swansea, UK
| | - Ganesh Radhakrishna
- Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Clinical Oncology, Manchester, UK
| | - Gilles Defraene
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Belgium
| | - Philippe Nafteux
- University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Belgium
| | | | - Karin Haustermans
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Belgium; University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Choi MS, Choi BS, Chung SY, Kim N, Chun J, Kim YB, Chang JS, Kim JS. Clinical evaluation of atlas- and deep learning-based automatic segmentation of multiple organs and clinical target volumes for breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2020; 153:139-145. [PMID: 32991916 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2020] [Revised: 09/22/2020] [Accepted: 09/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Manual segmentation is the gold standard method for radiation therapy planning; however, it is time-consuming and prone to inter- and intra-observer variation, giving rise to interests in auto-segmentation methods. We evaluated the feasibility of deep learning-based auto-segmentation (DLBAS) in comparison to commercially available atlas-based segmentation solutions (ABAS) for breast cancer radiation therapy. This study used contrast-enhanced planning computed tomography scans from 62 patients with breast cancer who underwent breast-conservation surgery. Contours of target volumes (CTVs), organs, and heart substructures were generated using two commercial ABAS solutions and DLBAS using fully convolutional DenseNet. The accuracy of the segmentation was assessed using 14 test patients using the Dice Similarity Coefficient and Hausdorff Distance referencing the expert contours. A sensitivity analysis was performed using non-contrast planning CT from 14 additional patients. Compared to ABAS, the proposed DLBAS model yielded more consistent results and the highest average Dice Similarity Coefficient values and lowest Hausdorff Distances, especially for CTVs and the substructures of the heart. ABAS showed limited performance in soft-tissue-based regions, such as the esophagus, cardiac arteries, and smaller CTVs. The results of sensitivity analysis between contrast and non-contrast CT test sets showed little difference in the performance of DLBAS and conversely, a large discrepancy for ABAS. The proposed DLBAS algorithm was more consistent and robust in its performance than ABAS across the majority of structures when examining both CTVs and normal organs. DLBAS has great potential to aid a key process in the radiation therapy workflow, helping optimise and reduce the clinical workload.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Min Seo Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Byeong Su Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Seung Yeun Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| | - Nalee Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jaehee Chun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Yong Bae Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jee Suk Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
| | - Jin Sung Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Lin D, Lapen K, Sherer MV, Kantor J, Zhang Z, Boyce LM, Bosch W, Korenstein D, Gillespie EF. A Systematic Review of Contouring Guidelines in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of Frequency, Methodology, and Delivery of Consensus Recommendations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:827-835. [PMID: 32311418 PMCID: PMC8262136 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.04.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2020] [Revised: 04/05/2020] [Accepted: 04/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical trials have described variation in radiation therapy plan quality, of which contour delineation is a key component, and linked this to inferior patient outcomes. In response, consensus guidelines have been developed to standardize contour delineation. This investigation assesses trends in contouring guidelines and examines the methodologies used to generate and deliver recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS We conducted a literature search for contouring guidelines published after 1995. Of 11,124 citations, 332 were identified for full-text review to determine inclusion. We abstracted articles for the intent of the consensus process, key elements of the methodology, and mode of information delivery. A Fisher exact test was used to identify elements that differed among the guidelines generated for clinical trials and routine care. RESULTS Overall, 142 guidelines were included, of which 16 (11%) were developed for a clinical trial. There was an increase in guideline publication over time (0 from 1995-1999 vs 65 from 2015- 2019; P = .03), particularly among recommendations for stereotactic radiation and brachytherapy. The most common disease sites were head and neck (24%), gastrointestinal (12%), and gynecologic (12%). Methods used to develop recommendations included literature review (50%) and image-based methods (45%). Panels included a median of 10 physicians (interquartile range, 7-16); 70% of panels represented multidisciplinary expertise. Guidelines developed for a clinical trial were more likely to include an image-based approach, with quantitative analysis of contours submitted by the panel members and to publish a full set of image-based recommendations (P < .005). CONCLUSIONS This review highlights an increase in consensus contouring recommendations over time. Guidelines focus on disease sites, such as head and neck, with evidence supporting a correlation between treatment planning and patient outcomes, although variation exists in the approach to the consensus process. Elements that may improve guideline acceptance (ie, image-based consensus contour analysis) and usability (ie, inclusion of a full image set) are more common in guidelines developed for clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diana Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Kaitlyn Lapen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Michael V Sherer
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California
| | - Jolie Kantor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Zhigang Zhang
- Department of Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Lindsay M Boyce
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Library, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Walter Bosch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Deborah Korenstein
- Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Erin F Gillespie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Duke SL, Tan LT, Jensen NB, Rumpold T, De Leeuw AA, Kirisits C, Lindegaard JC, Tanderup K, Pötter RC, Nout RA, Jürgenliemk-Schulz IM. Implementing an online radiotherapy quality assurance programme with supporting continuous medical education – report from the EMBRACE-II evaluation of cervix cancer IMRT contouring. Radiother Oncol 2020; 147:22-29. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2019] [Revised: 02/20/2020] [Accepted: 02/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
|
30
|
Mercieca S, Pan S, Belderbos J, Salem A, Tenant S, Aznar MC, Woolf D, Radhakrishna G, van Herk M. Impact of Peer Review in Reducing Uncertainty in the Definition of the Lung Target Volume Among Trainee Oncologists. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2020; 32:363-372. [PMID: 32033892 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.01.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2019] [Revised: 11/06/2019] [Accepted: 12/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
AIMS To evaluate the impact of peer review and contouring workshops on reducing uncertainty in target volume delineation for lung cancer radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data from two lung cancer target volume delineation courses were analysed. In total, 22 trainees in clinical oncology working across different UK centres attended these courses with priori experience in lung cancer radiotherapy. The courses were made up of short presentations and contouring practice sessions. The participants were divided into two groups and asked to first individually delineate (IND) and then individually peer review (IPR) the contours of another participant. The contours were discussed with an expert panel consisting of two consultant clinical oncologists and a consultant radiologist. Contours were analysed quantitatively by measuring the volume and local distance standard deviation (localSD) from the reference expert consensus contour and qualitatively through visual analysis. Feedback from the participants was obtained using a questionnaire. RESULTS All participants applied minor editing to the contours during IPR, leading to a non-statistically significant reduction in the mean delineated volume (IND = 140.92 cm3, IPR = 125.26 cm3, P = 0.211). The overall interobserver variation was similar, with a localSD of 0.33 cm and 0.38 cm for the IND and IPR, respectively (P = 0.848). Six participants (29%) carried out correct major changes by either including tumour or excluding healthy tissue. One participant (5%) carried out an incorrect edit by excluding parts of the tumour, while another observer failed to identify a major contour error. The participants' level of confidence in target volume delineation increased following the course and identified the discussions with the radiologist and colleagues as the most important highlights of the course. CONCLUSION IPR could improve target volume delineation quality among trainee oncologists by identifying most major contour errors. However, errors were also introduced after IPR, suggesting the need to further discuss major changes with a multidisciplinary team.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Mercieca
- Faculty of Health Science, University of Malta, Msida, Malta; Faculty of Medicine (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - S Pan
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - J Belderbos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Salem
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - S Tenant
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - M C Aznar
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D Woolf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G Radhakrishna
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - M van Herk
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|