Defining a Quantitative Threshold for Adaptive Re-planning using a Percentile-based Scoring System.

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY
International Journal of Particle Therapy Pub Date : 2026-02-09 eCollection Date: 2026-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijpt.2026.101305
Alexandra O Leone, Christine B Peterson, Anna Lee, Adam S Garden, G Brandon Gunn, Lauren L Mayo, Amy C Moreno, Steven J Frank, C David Fuller, Jay P Reddy, Karen Hoffman, Ivan Vazquez, Ming Yang, Joshua S Niedzielski, Laurence E Court, Thomas J Whitaker
{"title":"Defining a Quantitative Threshold for Adaptive Re-planning using a Percentile-based Scoring System.","authors":"Alexandra O Leone, Christine B Peterson, Anna Lee, Adam S Garden, G Brandon Gunn, Lauren L Mayo, Amy C Moreno, Steven J Frank, C David Fuller, Jay P Reddy, Karen Hoffman, Ivan Vazquez, Ming Yang, Joshua S Niedzielski, Laurence E Court, Thomas J Whitaker","doi":"10.1016/j.ijpt.2026.101305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the frequent need for adaptive planning in head and neck proton therapy, no quantitative indicators have been identified to determine when a plan should be adapted. Here, we aimed to determine a quantitative threshold for the change in plan quality between the primary treatment plan and verification plans that correlates with the physician's decision to adapt.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary treatment and verification plans were extracted from the clinical treatment planning system for 167 patients who underwent intensity-modulated proton therapy for base of tongue, tonsillar, or oropharyngeal cancers, with and without nodal involvement, between 2016 and 2021. All plans were graded using a previously validated percentile-based Daisy scoring system, and differences between the primary plan and its corresponding verification plans were calculated. Two generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were created using the difference in plan scores and the primary plan score to predict the probability of a plan being adapted. Additionally, five radiation oncologists evaluated 65 verification plans using a 3-point Likert scale (1=\"Adaptive Planning Necessary\", 2=\"Consider Adapting\", and 3=\"Acceptable\"). Wilcoxon rank sum analysis was used to determine statistical significance between the score differences in each category.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The GLMM results demonstrated a significant relationship between score differences and the need for adaptive planning (<i>P</i>=0.034), and the combined score difference plus primary plan score with the need for adaptive planning (<i>P</i>=0.004, <i>P</i>=0.027). Physician review indicated that plans requiring adaptation had a mean score drop of 37.7%±16.4, whereas acceptable plans had a mean drop of 19.3%±15.0. Structurally, the high-dose clinical tumor volume D<sub>95%</sub>[%] and hotspots (Body<sub>D2cc[Gy]</sub>) were most indicative of whether a plan should be adapted.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A percentile-based Daisy scoring system can be used to identify a threshold at which a change in plan score between primary and verification plans indicates that an adaptive plan is necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":36923,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","volume":"19 ","pages":"101305"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12927274/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpt.2026.101305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the frequent need for adaptive planning in head and neck proton therapy, no quantitative indicators have been identified to determine when a plan should be adapted. Here, we aimed to determine a quantitative threshold for the change in plan quality between the primary treatment plan and verification plans that correlates with the physician's decision to adapt.

Methods: Primary treatment and verification plans were extracted from the clinical treatment planning system for 167 patients who underwent intensity-modulated proton therapy for base of tongue, tonsillar, or oropharyngeal cancers, with and without nodal involvement, between 2016 and 2021. All plans were graded using a previously validated percentile-based Daisy scoring system, and differences between the primary plan and its corresponding verification plans were calculated. Two generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were created using the difference in plan scores and the primary plan score to predict the probability of a plan being adapted. Additionally, five radiation oncologists evaluated 65 verification plans using a 3-point Likert scale (1="Adaptive Planning Necessary", 2="Consider Adapting", and 3="Acceptable"). Wilcoxon rank sum analysis was used to determine statistical significance between the score differences in each category.

Results: The GLMM results demonstrated a significant relationship between score differences and the need for adaptive planning (P=0.034), and the combined score difference plus primary plan score with the need for adaptive planning (P=0.004, P=0.027). Physician review indicated that plans requiring adaptation had a mean score drop of 37.7%±16.4, whereas acceptable plans had a mean drop of 19.3%±15.0. Structurally, the high-dose clinical tumor volume D95%[%] and hotspots (BodyD2cc[Gy]) were most indicative of whether a plan should be adapted.

Conclusions: A percentile-based Daisy scoring system can be used to identify a threshold at which a change in plan score between primary and verification plans indicates that an adaptive plan is necessary.

使用基于百分位的评分系统定义自适应重新规划的定量阈值。
背景:尽管头颈部质子治疗经常需要适应性计划,但没有定量指标确定何时应该调整计划。在这里,我们的目的是确定一个定量阈值,以确定与医生适应决定相关的初级治疗计划和验证计划之间计划质量的变化。方法:从临床治疗计划系统中提取2016年至2021年间167例接受调强质子治疗的舌基底、扁桃体或口咽癌患者的初步治疗和验证计划,伴有和不伴有淋巴结累及。所有计划都使用先前验证的基于百分位的Daisy评分系统进行评分,并计算主要计划与其相应验证计划之间的差异。利用计划得分和主计划得分的差值,建立了两个广义线性混合模型(GLMM)来预测计划被适应的概率。此外,5名放射肿瘤学家使用3点李克特量表(1=“适应性计划必要”,2=“考虑适应性”,3=“可接受”)评估了65个验证计划。采用Wilcoxon秩和分析确定各类别评分差异的统计学显著性。结果:GLMM结果显示,得分差异与适应性计划需求之间存在显著相关(P=0.034),得分差异加主要计划得分与适应性计划需求之间存在显著相关(P=0.004, P=0.027)。医师回顾显示,需要适应的方案的平均评分下降了37.7%±16.4,而可接受的方案的平均评分下降了19.3%±15.0。结构上,高剂量临床肿瘤体积D95%[%]和热点(BodyD2cc[Gy])最能指示是否应采用方案。结论:基于百分位的Daisy评分系统可以用来识别一个阈值,在这个阈值上,主要计划和验证计划之间的计划评分的变化表明适应性计划是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Particle Therapy
International Journal of Particle Therapy Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
23
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书