Evaluation of margining algorithms in commercial treatment planning systems

Pooler, Alistair; Mayles, Helen; Naismith, O.; Sage, John; Dearnaley, David P.

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2007.11.006

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although all conformity indices were calculated in  (Ref. 27) to limit uncertainties due to different segmentation algorithms in each TPS, 34 the voxel size differs in each TPS and therefore interpolation results in small differences within each structure set. The difference in voxel sizes remains in  with PSI-plan having larger voxel sizes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, the centre treating the majority of IP patients was unique in using daily rectal micro-enemas, and there was significant variability between centres in the drinking volumes recommended by their bladder preparation procedures (200–750 ml). PTV differences resulting from the margin-growing algorithms of the various treatment planning systems have also been reported [14]. IP and FP patients were matched (1:1) using two volume parameters, each divided into six volume bands.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forward- and Inverse-Planned Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in the CHHiP Trial: A Comparison of Dosimetry and Normal Tissue Toxicity

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims The CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High-dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy In Prostate Cancer; CRUK/06/016) trial investigated hypofractionated radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Forward- (FP) or inverse-planned (IP) intensity-modulated techniques were permitted. Dose–volume histogram and toxicity data were compared to explore the effects of planning method. Materials and methods In total, 337 participants with intermediate-risk disease and prospectively collected toxicity data were included. Patients were matched on prostate and rectum/bladder volumes and on radiotherapy dose for toxicity comparisons. The primary outcome was grade 2 or higher Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) bowel or bladder toxicity at 2 years. Results IP patients had smaller volumes of rectum irradiated to 50–70 Gy ( P < 0.001); FP patients had smaller volumes of bladder irradiated to 74 Gy ( P = 0.001). Acute grade 2 + bowel toxicity was worse with FP (27/53 [52%]; 11/53 [21%] IP; P = 0.0002); with no significant differences in acute urinary toxicity. At 2 years, RTOG grade 2 + bowel toxicity rates were FP 0/53 and IP 2/53 and RTOG grade 2 + bladder rates were FP 0/54 and IP 1/57. Conclusions Significant differences were found between dose–volume histograms from FP and IP methods. IP may result in small reductions in acute bowel toxicity but both techniques were associated with low rates of late radiotherapy side-effects.

show abstract

“…Clear instructions need to be provided in trial protocols to increase compliance in these aspects of TVD. When assessing PTV conformity, the possibility of variation in TPS margining algorithms [34] needs to be considered. Site-specific solutions will need to be developed for each tumour site but could involve a combination of STAPLE and single investigator-derived volumes.…”

Section: Aimmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving radiotherapy quality assurance in clinical trials: assessment of target volume delineation of the pre-accrual benchmark case

Gwynne¹,

Spezi²,

Sebag‐Montefiore³

et al. 2013

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the complexity of radiotherapy (RT) trials increases, issues surrounding target volume delineation will become more important. Some form of outlining assessment prior to trial entry is increasingly being mandated in UK RT trials. This document produced by the Outlining and Imaging Subgroup (OISG) of the National Cancer Research Institute will address methods to reduce interobserver variation in clinical trials and how to conduct an assessment of outlining through a pre-accrual benchmark case. We review currently available methods of describing the variation and identify areas where further work is needed. The OISG would encourage ongoing discussion with chief investigators in order to provide advice on individual aspects of benchmark case assessment for current and future trials.The importance of quality assurance (QA) in radiotherapy (RT) trials has been highlighted by recent publications showing that protocol deviations can negatively impact on survival in head and neck and pancreatic cancer trials [1,2]. These studies have focused predominantly on planning rather

show abstract

Evaluation of margining algorithms in commercial treatment planning systems

Cited by 16 publications

References 6 publications

Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma

Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma

Forward- and Inverse-Planned Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in the CHHiP Trial: A Comparison of Dosimetry and Normal Tissue Toxicity

Improving radiotherapy quality assurance in clinical trials: assessment of target volume delineation of the pre-accrual benchmark case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About