Dose Planning and Radiation Optimization for Thoracic Conventional, Twice Daily, and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy: A Delphi Consensus From a National Survey of Practitioners.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Julius Weng, Jeff Ryckman, Matthew S Katz, Hina Saeed, Christopher Estes, Issam El Naqa, Amy Moreno, Sue S Yom
{"title":"Dose Planning and Radiation Optimization for Thoracic Conventional, Twice Daily, and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy: A Delphi Consensus From a National Survey of Practitioners.","authors":"Julius Weng, Jeff Ryckman, Matthew S Katz, Hina Saeed, Christopher Estes, Issam El Naqa, Amy Moreno, Sue S Yom","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.11.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We sent surveys to a large number of radiation oncologists with active thoracic cancer practices and applied the Delphi method over 3 rounds to generate consensus dose-volume histogram metrics. We used these results to create consensus-based organs-at-risk dose constraints and target goal templates for practical implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>In this institutional review board-approved study, data were collected using REDCap electronic data capture on a secure server. Radiation oncologists identified from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited departments' websites were asked to confirm their self-identification as thoracic radiation oncologists and nominate other respondents. All invitees were asked to complete 3 rounds of questions related to normal tissue constraints, target coverage metrics, prescribing practices, and other planning considerations. Preliminary consensus statements were presented in the second round of surveys for voting on a 5-point Likert scale. The third and last round of surveys presented the iterated consensus statements and target coverage metric statements for final voting. The high consensus was predefined as ≥ 75% agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-three (42.8%) of 194 invitees completed at least 1 round of surveys. The group included a diversity of gender, geography, and clinical settings. Response rates were 83%, 57%, and 55%, respectively, for the 3 rounds. By the end of the process, 48 of 96 (50%) originally proposed normal tissue dose constraint statements were iterated to consensus, and 5 of 7 (71%) proposed target coverage metric statements achieved consensus. These were used to create crowdsourced treatment planning templates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study achieved broad-based consensus-building on ideal and acceptable dose constraints for conventional, twice-daily, and stereotactic thoracic radiation therapy. Future directions could include extending this approach to other disease sites, studying the influence of widespread implementation on treatment planning, or facilitating the development of community consensus around emergent or controversial questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2024.11.006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We sent surveys to a large number of radiation oncologists with active thoracic cancer practices and applied the Delphi method over 3 rounds to generate consensus dose-volume histogram metrics. We used these results to create consensus-based organs-at-risk dose constraints and target goal templates for practical implementation.

Methods and materials: In this institutional review board-approved study, data were collected using REDCap electronic data capture on a secure server. Radiation oncologists identified from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited departments' websites were asked to confirm their self-identification as thoracic radiation oncologists and nominate other respondents. All invitees were asked to complete 3 rounds of questions related to normal tissue constraints, target coverage metrics, prescribing practices, and other planning considerations. Preliminary consensus statements were presented in the second round of surveys for voting on a 5-point Likert scale. The third and last round of surveys presented the iterated consensus statements and target coverage metric statements for final voting. The high consensus was predefined as ≥ 75% agreement.

Results: Eighty-three (42.8%) of 194 invitees completed at least 1 round of surveys. The group included a diversity of gender, geography, and clinical settings. Response rates were 83%, 57%, and 55%, respectively, for the 3 rounds. By the end of the process, 48 of 96 (50%) originally proposed normal tissue dose constraint statements were iterated to consensus, and 5 of 7 (71%) proposed target coverage metric statements achieved consensus. These were used to create crowdsourced treatment planning templates.

Conclusion: This study achieved broad-based consensus-building on ideal and acceptable dose constraints for conventional, twice-daily, and stereotactic thoracic radiation therapy. Future directions could include extending this approach to other disease sites, studying the influence of widespread implementation on treatment planning, or facilitating the development of community consensus around emergent or controversial questions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Practical Radiation Oncology
Practical Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.10%
发文量
177
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: The overarching mission of Practical Radiation Oncology is to improve the quality of radiation oncology practice. PRO''s purpose is to document the state of current practice, providing background for those in training and continuing education for practitioners, through discussion and illustration of new techniques, evaluation of current practices, and publication of case reports. PRO strives to provide its readers content that emphasizes knowledge "with a purpose." The content of PRO includes: Original articles focusing on patient safety, quality measurement, or quality improvement initiatives Original articles focusing on imaging, contouring, target delineation, simulation, treatment planning, immobilization, organ motion, and other practical issues ASTRO guidelines, position papers, and consensus statements Essays that highlight enriching personal experiences in caring for cancer patients and their families.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信