Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Contour variation is a primary source of error when delivering post prostatectomy radiotherapy: Results of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03 Radiotherapy Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) benchmarking exercise.
Cloak, Kirrily; Jameson, Michael G; Paneghel, Andrea; Wiltshire, Kirsty; Kneebone, Andrew; Pearse, Maria; Sidhom, Mark; Tang, Colin; Fraser-Browne, Carol; Holloway, Lois C; Haworth, Annette.
Afiliação
  • Cloak K; South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Jameson MG; Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Paneghel A; Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Wiltshire K; South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Kneebone A; Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Pearse M; Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Sidhom M; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Tang C; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Fraser-Browne C; University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Holloway LC; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Haworth A; Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol ; 63(3): 390-398, 2019 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30950223
INTRODUCTION: Variation in target volume delineation from clinical trial protocols has been shown to contribute to poorer patient outcomes. A clinical trial quality assurance framework can support compliance with trial protocol. Results of the TROG 08.03 RAVES benchmarking exercise considering variation from protocol, inter-observer variability and impact on dosimetry are reported in this paper. METHODS: Clinicians were required to contour and plan a benchmarking case according to trial protocol. Geometric pjmirometers including volume, Hausdorff Distance, Mean Distance to Agreement and DICE similarity coefficient were analysed for targets and organs at risk. Submitted volumes were compared to a STAPLE and consensus 'reference' volume for each structure. Dosimetric analysis was performed using dose volume histogram data. RESULTS: Benchmarking exercise submissions were received from 96 clinicians. In total 205 protocol variations were identified. The most common variation was inadequate contouring of the CTV in 84/205 (41%). The CTV volume ranged from 65.3 to 193.1 cm3 with a median of 113.2 cm3 . The most common dosimetric protocol variation related to rectal dosimetry. The mean submitted rectal volume receiving 40 Gy and 60 Gy, respectively, was 56.14% ± 5.55% and 30.25% ± 6.15%. When corrected to the protocol defined length the mean rectal volume receiving 40 Gy was 60.8% ± 7.92%, while the volume receiving 60 Gy was 33.86% ± 8.21%. CONCLUSION: Variations from protocol were found in the RAVES benchmarking exercise, most notably in CTV and rectum delineation. Inter-observer variability was evident. Incorrect delineation of the rectum impacted on dosimetric compliance with protocol.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: Oceania Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: Oceania Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article