Clinical validation of a graphical method for radiation therapy plan quality assessment

Autor: Tiago Ventura, Eduardo Netto, André Soares, Maria do Carmo Lopes, Brigida Costa Ferreira, Leila Khouri, Joana Dias, Humberto Rocha
Přispěvatelé: Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico do Porto
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2020
Předmět:
Male
Organs at Risk
lcsh:Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
Quality Assurance
Health Care
media_common.quotation_subject
lcsh:R895-920
Plan (drawing)
Machine learning
computer.software_genre
lcsh:RC254-282
030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Set (abstract data type)
03 medical and health sciences
Automatic group
0302 clinical medicine
Cohen's kappa
Computer Graphics
Humans
Medicine
Radiology
Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Quality (business)
Selection (genetic algorithm)
media_common
business.industry
Research
Radiotherapy Planning
Computer-Assisted
Rank (computer programming)
Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms
Radiotherapy Dosage
Clinical validation
lcsh:Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
Decision-making
Plan quality assessment
Oncology
Ranking
030220 oncology & carcinogenesis
Female
Radiotherapy
Intensity-Modulated
Artificial intelligence
business
computer
Algorithms
Zdroj: Radiation Oncology, Vol 15, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2020)
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instacron:RCAAP
Radiation Oncology (London, England)
Popis: Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje