Clinical validation of a graphical method for radiation therapy plan quality assessment
Open Access
- 12 March 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Radiation Oncology
- Vol. 15 (1), 1-10
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01507-5
Abstract
This work aims at clinically validating a graphical tool developed for treatment plan assessment, named SPIDERplan, by comparing the plan choices based on its scoring with the radiation oncologists (RO) clinical preferences. SPIDERplan validation was performed for nasopharynx pathology in two steps. In the first step, three ROs from three Portuguese radiotherapy departments were asked to blindly evaluate and rank the dose distributions of twenty pairs of treatment plans. For plan ranking, the best plan from each pair was selected. For plan evaluation, the qualitative classification of ‘Good’, ‘Admissible with minor deviations’ and ‘Not Admissible’ were assigned to each plan. In the second step, SPIDERplan was applied to the same twenty patient cases. The tool was configured for two sets of structures groups: the local clinical set and the groups of structures suggested in international guidelines for nasopharynx cancer. Group weights, quantifying the importance of each group and incorporated in SPIDERplan, were defined according to RO clinical preferences and determined automatically by applying a mixed linear programming model for implicit elicitation of preferences. Intra- and inter-rater ROs plan selection and evaluation were assessed using Brennan-Prediger kappa coefficient. Two-thirds of the plans were qualitatively evaluated by the ROs as ‘Good’. Concerning intra- and inter-rater variabilities of plan selection, fair agreements were obtained for most of the ROs. For plan evaluation, substantial agreements were verified in most cases. The choice of the best plan made by SPIDERplan was identical for all sets of groups and, in most cases, agreed with RO plan selection. Differences between RO choice and SPIDERplan analysis only occurred in cases for which the score differences between the plans was very low. A score difference threshold of 0.005 was defined as the value below which two plans are considered of equivalent quality. Generally, SPIDERplan response successfully reproduced the ROs plan selection. SPIDERplan assessment performance can represent clinical preferences based either on manual or automatic group weight assignment. For nasopharynx cases, SPIDERplan was robust in terms of the definitions of structure groups, being able to support different configurations without losing accuracy.Keywords
Funding Information
- Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UID/Multi/00308/2019)
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Variation in external beam treatment plan quality: An inter-institutional study of planners and planning systemsPractical Radiation Oncology, 2012
- A new dose–volume-based Plan Quality Index for IMRT plan comparisonRadiotherapy and Oncology, 2007
- A new concept for interactive radiotherapy planning with multicriteria optimization: First clinical evaluationRadiotherapy and Oncology, 2007
- Assessing the quality of conformal treatment planning: a new tool for quantitative comparisonPhysics in Medicine & Biology, 2006
- A dose‐volume‐based tool for evaluating and ranking IMRT treatment plansJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2004
- Objective evaluation of 3-d radiation treatment plans: A decision-analytic tool incorporating treatment preferences of radiation oncologistsInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 1993
- Models in radiotherapy: Definition of decision criteriaMedical Physics, 1985
- Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferencesPsychometrika, 1973